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 2 of 25.
“” The language used in a similar Australian government public resource is similarly gender-neutral and states: “Under the Family Law Act 1975, a person has a responsibility to financially assist their spouse, or former de facto partner, if that person cannot meet their own reasonable expenses from their personal income or assets.” In section 63 and 64 of New Zealand’s Family Proceedings Act 1980, gender-neutral language is used. For example, “each spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner is liable to maintain the other spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner to the extent that such maintenance is necessary to meet the reasonable needs of the other spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner, where the other spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner cannot practicably meet the whole or any part of those needs because of any one or more of the circumstances specified in subsection (2).” So, the language is gender neutral. To quote from a court verdict in Ontario, Canada, by Justice Wildman in Hamdy vs Hamdy, just to cite another example "…gender is, of course, irrelevant in determining spousal support. What is important are the roles assumed in the marriage." In the 2022 debate on amendments to the Women’s Charter, the Minister of State for Social and Family Development responded to calls to provide maintenance to husbands by stating that the purpose of the current regime is to protect parties who tend to be more financially vulnerable post-divorce, that is, women and incapacitated men. I agree with such an aim. However, this does not stop the Government from extending the safeguards provided by the maintenance regime to another potentially vulnerable group, namely, stay-at-home husbands.”
“With a larger proportion of women in the workforce, it could well be the case that women might out-earn men in some dual-income households and, thus, would make economic sense for the husband to take on the bulk of domestic work in a household, depending on the decisions that the husband and wife make in each particular case. However, the current maintenance regime arguably reinforces traditional gendered household roles where men traditionally are regarded as “breadwinners” and women as “homemakers”, by providing that only incapacitated husbands qualify for maintenance. An Institute of Policy Studies survey of stay-at-home fathers in 2020 showed that many of the respondents, many of these stay-at-home dads, experienced “acute stigma” and family members often directed comments suggesting that they were “mooching” from their wives. Sir, amending the law to provide for gender-neutral maintenance would help to send the correct message that the contributions of stay-at-home husbands are as valued as the care work done by stay-at-home wives. Thirdly, many other developed countries allow for men to claim maintenance as well, such as the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA. And there could be others as well. Let us take a leaf from their books. In the UK government’s Guide to Spousal Maintenance, it is stated that “Spousal maintenance is a payment that’s paid by a wife or husband to their former spouse as part of their divorce.”
“First, the number of stay-home husbands has been gradually increasing over the years. The Singapore Census Population 2020 showed that the percentage of married households where wives are the sole breadwinners – and I stress, married households – increased from 5.8% in 2010 to 7.4% in 2020. That is not an insignificant number at all. In fact, the Labour Force survey for Singapore in 2022 showed that 10.6% of caregivers outside the labour force are males, whether married or unmarried. Again, this is a not an insignificant minority. Many stay-at-home husbands, just like stay-at-home wives, have sacrificed their careers and incurred significant opportunity costs to spend years looking after their households and doing unpaid care work, such as raising the children. As a result, stay-at-home husbands may have far less savings as compared to their working wives and may well be financially vulnerable in the event of a divorce. Allowing the Courts to have discretion to award maintenance to such husbands would serve to recognise their care work and unpaid contributions. It would also help to safeguard the financially vulnerable spouse, whether husband or wife, which is, surely, the fundamental purpose of maintenance payments. Secondly, since the Women’s Charter was first enacted in 1961, women in Singapore have made significant progress. In 2020, 52.5% of married households were dual-income households, an increase from 47.1% in 2010. In 2022, the employment rate of females aged 15 and over was 60.9%, the fourth highest in comparison with OECD developed countries.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, one of the aims of the Family Justice Reform Bill is to facilitate more sustainable maintenance outcomes. I support the Bill. Beyond amending the legislation to make it easier to enforce maintenance payments, going forward, I would like to call for the Government to consider providing for gender-neutral maintenance. That will be the thrust of my speech today. How could gender-neutral maintenance payments be operationalised? This should be done by giving the Courts the discretion to order that, in appropriate cases, wives should pay maintenance to ex-husbands even if they are not incapacitated. Such cases could include where the husband earns much less than his ex-wife, or is a stay-home-husband, and has borne the bulk of domestic chores and caregiving. This is in contrast to the current maintenance regime in the Women’s Charter, which provides that, in a divorce, the Court may order a man to pay maintenance to his ex-wife but may order a woman to pay maintenance to her ex-husband only if he is incapacitated. I previously raised this issue in the Motion on Singapore Women’s Development in 2022. My hon friend, Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Member of Parliament Mr Gerald Giam, has also spoken on this in 2021. Indeed, there is bipartisan support for awarding maintenance to stay-at-home dads. Hon Members Ms Carrie Tan and Mr Ang Wei Neng raised this issue in the 2022 Parliamentary debate on amendments to the Women’s Charter, and hon Members Mr Seah Kian Peng and Mr Louis Ng also raised this issue in the 2016 Parliamentary debate on amendments to Women’s Charter. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to elaborate, I call for the Government to consider providing for gender-neutral maintenance for the following reasons.”
“I thank the hon Member for his statements and, just to reiterate, when this idea of GST was mooted, we did not call for any reduction of the GST rate from 7% to 0%. So, that is, indeed, the position and that would be borne out if you go back to those debates from 2018 until now. I would again remind the Member, with respect, that if we are to bring up policy positions that had been taken decades ago and table them for debate, then I think the policies of the PAP from decades ago should also be put here and tabled for debate as well. But I do not think that that would be constructive because everyone evolves their position as conditions evolve. And I think for us in the WP, and it may be the same for the PAP, whenever we have to make a decision on whether to take a position on a policy, you look at all the options that are there on the table and you decide what is in the best interest of the country, what is rational, what is fact-based, and you take a position at that point in time on that particular issue. But I thank the Member for his comments.”
“I thank the hon Member Mr Murali Pillai for that question. What I had said, and I will repeat that here, is that if you go back to those debates in Parliament in 2018, we opposed a hike of GST from 7% to 9%. At no point in that debate did we call for the GST to be lowered from 7% to 0%. Mr Pillai makes reference to positions that were articulated by the WP in the 1990s. I do not know whether it is fair to bring up positions that were taken in the 1990s and have a debate about that. By the same token, I could bring up positions that the People's Action Party (PAP) has taken in the 1990s and table that for discussion here, such as the Graduate Mothers Scheme, such as votes for upgrading, for example. So, I think the point here is that – since the idea of a GST hike from 7% to 9% was first mooted and put on the table here in Parliament, which was in 2018 as I recall, at no point did anyone in the WP call for the GST to be lowered from 7% to 0%. And if there is anyone or if there is any evidence or reference that the Member can make, for anyone in the WP making that specific call, then we would be glad to discuss that.”
“I thank the Minister for her reply. Basically, just to reiterate what I just said, because I am not sure if what the Minister had recapitulated reflected what I said. I was suggesting that, in terms of the donation that we make to the COP27 fund, reference can be taken from what other developed countries of a similar size or GDP to ours are donating. That means you look at what other developed countries are doing and you normalise that according to GDP. That was my suggestion. And for where those funds should go, that should be distributed according to the challenges that the developing countries are facing in terms of biodiversity scale and the resources that those developing countries have to address the issues. This is just to clarify what I said earlier. Should we move away from the Paris Agreement? No. In fact, I would like to ask the Minister to share whether donating to the COP27 fund necessarily involves deviating from previous agreements made in Paris. It is not my understanding that it does, but perhaps she has a different perspective and some information to share on that point.”
“I thank the Minister for her question. I will not speak for the party. I can share my personal opinion. I think we should make a reasonable contribution. And where do you draw the balance point on that? I do not have a figure, but I think we can take reference, perhaps from other developed countries with a similar size of economy, of gross domestic product (GDP) as ours and use that as a reference point. How should those funds be disbursed to different developing countries? I think it should be in proportion to the needs and the resources of those developing countries, meaning to say in proportion to the land area and biodiversity challenge that those developing countries face, and the funding, GDP, availability of government funds that those developing countries have.”
“I thank the Minister for her reply. I think in the last exchange, the Minister mentioned that Singapore is currently considering to be either a claimant or a donor to the 2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27) Biodiversity Fund. So, my supplementary question would be would the Government consider being a donor rather than a claimant, given that it behoves us as a developed country to do our part to maintain global biodiversity vis-à-vis countries such as, for example, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which has much larger land and biodiversity resources and also less funding to manage that issue.”
“The proposal that we put forward was that BTO supply and construction should continue, but should taper down when flats start to hit year 70, because we had a very specific proposal on what can be done when flats hit year 70. That is going to happen only in, I think, about 12 years' time. So, it was not a call for an immediate cut or any kind of cut in BTO construction at the time. I think I have explained this multiple times, but I just thought that, clearly, I need to just explain it one last time.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just very briefly to respond to the Minister. I thank the Minister for acknowledging that, and I fully agree, I think all of us would agree that at the end of the day, while we may have philosophic differences in the means to achieve the end, we all share the same goal in the end of a stronger Singapore, a better Singapore, a better country for all our future generations. So, I thank the Minister of acknowledging that. I just want to make a few points very quickly in response. One is that, he talked about the role of the Opposition as offering alternative ideas. A few of us spoke about alternative ideas – just in the course of this debate and also previous debates. I want to point out that we have offered differentiated policy proposals. In some cases, the Government has moved closer to the proposals we have made in the past. In some cases, not. But I think that it is clear that we have offered differentiated alternative policies and I cited a number of examples in my speech. The second point is then on financing. So, now that I have clarified that we are talking about – assuming that we have 7% GST in the revenue mix but opposing an increase to 9% – I would point out again that the financing proposals we have put forward in the past, which would generate approximately $3 billion to $3.5 billion in incremental revenue, would address that GST shortfall. It is not that we have not explained it; it is not that we have hidden the trade-offs; it is not that we have no explanation for how to finance that gap. We have explained it multiple times in the past. And the last point I make is on the reference to the housing paper that the WP put up in 2019, we did not actually propose a cutback in BTO supply or halting BTO supply.”
“Thank you, yes, I have a very soft voice. I get that from my father. My response to the question is that if you go back to the debates in this House that we have had about the GST hike from 7% to 9% and the positions we laid out, the position that we have adopted, at least from that time, which I believe was 2018, is that we accept the reality of a GST at 7%, because the amount of revenue that is generated by a 7% GST is so substantial and has become such a structural part of the Government revenue mix, that to want to bring that down to zero would involve too many other trade-offs. So, we do accept that the GST at 7% is something that we do not oppose, but we oppose the hike to 8% and 9%. That was the position that we have conveyed and debated in this House from those debates from 2018. I was there as well until the current time. But I think some of our Members may also expand on this subsequently.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for the question. So, our position, as explained in the debates relating to the GST — The Government Whip (Dr Janil Puthucheary): Mr Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt, but may I offer some advice to Mr Perera that, perhaps, he might like to speak a little bit louder so that the microphones could pick him up for the benefit of all.”
“Sorry to stand in the way of the break. I will keep it very brief. I just wanted to thank the Minister for his responses to my speech and I just have two points of clarification. One is, I think, the Minister did refer to the fact that we have different views on the NIR ceiling, so I just like to ask Minister if he would acknowledge or agree that there is philosophic difference, but it is not a difference that we have not explained. We have, when we put out our proposals, talked about where the financing is going to come from. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and another WP Member of Parliament have explained and put forward proposals for financing and different ideas that we put across and the Minister referred to one of them which is raising the NIR ceiling. So, would he acknowledge that, that has been done as opposed to not being done? And would he also acknowledge, in the same vein as some of the things that he said that we do put forward concrete ideas and the PAP may disagree with some of those ideas and we can debate them and agree to disagree, but they are alternatives and I mentioned some of those alternatives that we have put forward in the past in my speech. That is the first one and the second one is really on the point about future generations. I would ask Minister if he would agree that it is a balancing exercise because if conditions become too difficult, if liveability becomes damaged too much for the current generation, that would affect our fertility and there may be fewer people in the future generations to enjoy the benefits that the reserves and other things are meant to provide. So, would the Minister acknowledge that there is also some balancing that needs to be done on that front.”
“Yes, I am tracking the time. One minute. Leading and catalysing such a regional flagship project will help bolster Singapore's economy and also Singapore's soft power in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region, a region which has a potentially important historical destiny, namely that of a bulwark and zone of buffering and balancing between the great powers of China and the West. And what if Singapore demonstrates how its traditional bureaucratic efficiency can be combined with policies that ensure openness, accountability and democratic ownership among an active citizenry? That could serve as a good example for this vital region that will inspire emulation and perhaps help form an ASEAN identity around such principles. [Applause.]”
“The scale of this is extremely large – just the renewables arm of one of their sovereign wealth funds have targeted 100 gigawatts of renewables at home and abroad by 2030, quadrupling the current commitment and being worth around US$100 billion. By comparison, Temasek-linked Sembcorp's 2025 target is 10 gigawatts; Keppel’s is seven gigawatts. An example of UAE "dealplomacy" is where its government-owned renewables business, Masdar, committed to a 10-gigwatt mega-wind farm in Egypt in a deal on COP27's sidelines, which would save Egypt $5 billion in annual gas costs and offset about 9% of its emissions. In comparison, Singapore has supported renewable energy companies' expansion into the region and internationally, but largely on a commercial, non-diplomatic basis. Why green investments as the backbone of these regional leadership efforts? Because green energy is cheap, lasting, critical and has the potential to make a far-reaching impact. The International Renewable Energy Agency estimates that, if Southeast Asia were to build enough renewables to cut energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, it could also save US$160 billion as well as $1.5 trillion in health and environmental costs related to fossil fuels by 2050. But to pull this off, $7 trillion in investment is needed from now, till then. In 2018, I spoke in this House about the idea of Singapore leading a flagship project in the region on renewable energy or some such theme to serve multiple economic and diplomatic ends. Such projects need not be primarily government-financed, but can raise financing in capital markets globally. Leading and catalysing such a regional flagship project will help bolster—”
“Not going for false but flashy soundbites that smear our opponents, that the media then viralise with huge headlines. I do not want my children to grow up in a post-truth society. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I come now to the third and last part of my speech, about the development of a Singapore model that can inspire the world. As I said in my maiden speech, we have got certain fundamentals right. The glass is half full. Let us fill in the other half with measures to enhance our active citizenry, civil society and engaged, rational politics. This thinking can extend to regional leadership in economic projects. Such projects can be designed to reflect Singaporean values of good corporate governance and efficiency, but also incorporating consultation and engagement with civil society and other stakeholders. And the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for such projects could advance goals, like poverty alleviation, reflecting Singaporean values of egalitarianism and inclusivity. Singapore has positioned itself as a leader in economic openness, having the most free trade agreements (FTAs) in the region. But one of our distant competitors is putting a twist on this approach. The UAE's diplomacy focuses on playing a supporting role to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and so on, who have much bigger populations and armies, even as the UAE positions itself as the business gateway to the Arab World and Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. But the UAE has taken this a step further. It invests in overseas assets with a very outsized investment in renewables.”
“I believe slowing down the growth of reserves is wholly justified at this stage of our nation's history, given the needs we have with an ageing population in a turbulent world and given the much larger size of the Reserves now versus gross domestic product (GDP), as they were in the past. My WP colleagues and I have explained this repeatedly, on multiple platforms. We must invest to ensure a confident current generation, lest our fertility go so low that there will be few people in the generations to come. Sir, before I move on, I want to refer to Deputy Prime Minister Wong's comment yesterday that the Opposition should offer concrete alternative policy ideas. We have been doing this. We offer alternative policies that differ substantively from the ideas of the PAP, for example, on slowing the Reserves growth to enhance liveability, social justice and social mobility and reducing BTO prices based on tweaks to the land valuation formula. The alternatives we have championed in Parliament, in our manifesto, are too numerous for me to mention here. I only have 20 minutes. In fact, I only have less than five minutes left. We championed an expansive acute hospital bill insurance scheme and permanently delinking BTO from resale prices long before this was adopted by the PAP Government. We championed anti-discrimination legislation and redundancy insurance, policies that the PAP are now considering in some form. The Deputy Prime Minister and the PAP know this. They know it. Sir, I have a sense of déjà vu now, recalling how I was debating a similar issue about what the PAP said about our housing paper in this House just a few weeks ago. [Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair] Mdm Deputy Speaker, let us be honest in our political debates. Honest.”
“If left to fester, such economic pessimism could lead to a brain drain as people leave for more liveable countries. If that happens, that may tend to create an over-reliance on foreign manpower. We need to address this economic pessimism fundamentally, not only through ad hoc measures, such as an additional grant here or an additional rebate there, helpful as that is. More far-reaching reforms are needed to make everyone believe that this society has their back. The WP has called for many such reforms in the past. In the interest of time, I shall not expand on these, but I shall refer to them. One, a national minimum wage. Two, a redundancy insurance scheme. This is something the WP has championed for some time and I was intrigued by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's reference to some form of unemployment support. Three, seriously tackling the issue of poverty and breaking the poverty cycle. I have called for a war on poverty in this House. My hon friend Assoc Prof Jamus Lim has also weighed in on this topic yesterday, as have other WP MPs over the years. Four, reforming the HDB housing system to lower Build-To-Order (BTO) prices by revisiting the formula for land valuation as well as introducing various other reforms, as we argued in the recent housing debate. Five, revamping trades or vocational jobs to overhaul them for higher productivity, pay and conditions. I have spoken about this in the House several times. Lest anyone say that the trade-offs have not been explained, these ideas, taken together, will slow the rate of growth of the Reserves, but will not draw down the Reserves.”
“In fact, poverty and social inequality ranked as the third big area of concern in a national survey done in 2020 by Ipsos, after jobs and healthcare. At this point, I declare my interest as the Chairman of a Singapore company that undertakes market research and consulting. Sir, when we have discussions like this, it is often pointed out that real wages are still growing. But the Edelman survey, plus a great deal of anecdotal experience from my conversations with Singaporeans in the Serangoon ward of Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) and East Coast GRC previously, suggest that this anxiety is very real. Many fear that the way food, house and other prices are rising, the way the job market is becoming more competitive, those with fewer advantages will truly struggle to build a tomorrow that is better than today. Also, we should recall that real wage data may mask some things. Real wages may appear to be rising but that may mask the fact that certain demographic groups may feel the pain of inflation more than others. Previously in the House, I have called for Consumer Price Index (CPI) data to be published by demographic group, for example, parents with young children or empty nesters, as inflation affects these groups differently. Also, within each income decile, there will be those who do less well than the median for that decile. And lastly, the Edelman survey shows that whatever the real wage growth data suggests, the thinking of many Singaporeans about the future reflects a lack of confidence that they can thrive going forward. This economic pessimism could be one reason for our globally low total fertility rate (TFR). In the previous housing debate, I also cited academic evidence for a causal link between high home prices and low TFR in Singapore.”
“Exposing them only to People's Action Party (PAP) politicians in schools and barring non-PAP ones in most student engagement contexts does not achieve this. Our future citizens need to be able to see both sides of a question, in a way that will inoculate them from the demagogues and foreign interference attempts of the future. Sir, we must not allow any sense to congeal that there is one dominant narrative and that everyone who has a different view has to be marginalised or go on the defensive. I now come to the second part of my speech on the optimism of Singaporeans. Will tomorrow be better than today? According to the 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer survey, only 36% of respondents in Singapore felt that their families will be better off economically in five years' time. Only 36%, the lowest level for this measure since Edelman started surveying 23 years ago. This 36%, for Singapore, compares with the 40% global average across 24 countries. Sir, the Leader of the Opposition spoke of the risk of there becoming two Singapores. Right now, close to 50% of households live in 5-room HDB flats or more expensive homes, private homes and so on. A little over 50% live in 4-, 3-, 2- or 1-room HDB flats. At the risk of oversimplification, those who live in less expensive homes may be the ones feeling the economic anxiety and pessimism that the Edelman survey measures. They may struggle to compete in the workplace or academia, especially if they did not receive the inherited advantages of wealth or social capital that President Halimah spoke of. The elderly on fixed or no incomes, have to grapple with rising food prices. Whereas others, the optimistic 36%, may feel that they can thrive in this very competitive society with high prices and expensive homes.”
“The current system creates a sense that state resources are invested in promoting the Government's thinking and the ruling party's politicians, which unlevels the playing field for politics and ideas in our nation. My hon friend, Aljunied MP, Mr Faisal Manap, will elaborate on this. Two, create an ombudsman with investigative capacity to strengthen confidence that the state and ruling party are accountable and cannot simply shut down a grievance that may be politically costly or for other reasons. At the very least, a second unbiased opinion would be of value. I have argued for this at length previously, as have other WP MPs. Three, ensure that funding for civil society, the arts and so on is handled by independent committees who are not linked to the government of the day. This would certainly help build the passionate civil society that President Halimah spoke of and counter any fears that civil society groups that advocate alternative policies to the Government may be penalised using state resources. Four, since we do not have a Freedom of Information Act, we should publish every single public opinion poll and data collection effort conducted with state funds, redacted only for anything that has clear and strong commercial or national security sensitivities for better-informed debate amongst political parties, civil society groups and citizens. Five, allow Opposition MPs to engage school students in their MP capacity, alongside ruling party MPs and Ministers, a subject I have raised in this House before. We need to mould the mental habits of our citizens from a young age to nurture independent, critical thinking.”
“I think trust in the independent institutions of the state is a very good thing, where it is warranted. But should the public blindly trust the Government, as in the political leadership, regardless of whether relevant information has been shared; regardless of what the Government says or does? Surely not. That goes against the active citizenry which the President's speech referred to. Sir, some speak of a democracy of deeds. But surely, we do not want a citizenry that is active in deeds, but blind, apathetic or timid in thinking. Such a citizenry may engage in the wrong deeds. And to trust the Government – does that mean that, since the Government and Opposition sometimes disagree and not, hopefully, irrationally, does that mean that it is right that the public distrust the Opposition? Surely not. We should not strive for a political landscape where the public innately trusts the Government but innately distrusts the Opposition, or vice versa. If any Member disagrees with this, please, I would love to hear your views later. We should strive, rather, for a politically educated populace that accords trust based on facts and evidence from independent institutions that function as intended. What can we do to strengthen everyone's confidence that we have an open society, where citizens can and should care, listen, understand and debate policies? How can we make everyone believe that there is a more level-playing field for ideas and not primarily one dominant narrative that you would do well not to challenge? In the interest of time, I will suggest just a few ideas to advance towards this goal which WP Members of Parliament (MPs) have expanded on in previous debates in this House. One, delink the People's Association from the ruling party.”
“During very major recent debates in this House, the Opposition explained how there were alternatives to a Goods and Services Tax (GST) hike that would slow the rate of growth of the Reserves; and that there were alternatives to a housing ecosystem based on the promise of asset appreciation and that these alternatives would lead to some weakening in the resale market. Were those trade-offs denied, hidden or glossed over? No. The trade-offs were explained. I think in our political discourse and even in our debates in this House, we should strive to treat Members' views and other parties' views fairly and accept when there is a philosophical or ideological difference, call it what you will, rather than being too quick to label the other side as "disingenuous". Such labels can affect the tone of discourse in the wider society, if alternative ideas become demonised or labelled uncharitably. Rather than chip away at trust in the Opposition with such labels, the Government should focus on explaining why it disagrees with the Opposition. Thirdly, on the need to keep political discourse rational, I do not think anyone would disagree with this. However, to have rational political discourse, we need transparency of information. We do not always get this. There are many examples of Parliamentary Questions that do not elicit the information requested without an explanation as to why that is the case. Sometimes, outcomes of public consultation are not made public. There is a great deal of public opinion surveying done by the Government, some of it through opinion-sensing agencies, like Rysense, for example. Not all of this is made available for public scrutiny and debate. Lastly, I come to the oft-repeated call for trust in Government.”
“Yet, we hear about divisive politics as though we are teetering on the edge of an abyss…I don't think we should be guarding against 'divisive politics' but rather 'mono-politics': that there is only one narrative, one view and it must necessarily be the right or the best perspective – unless you don't trust me. That is too tall an order for any citizen to submit to." Let us unpack and interrogate some of these assumptions in what I term "the dominant narrative". Firstly, do we want an active citizenry that feels that it is worth participating in politics by speaking out, listening, caring and getting involved in political discourse versus just retreating into private life? I think we should and I hope all hon Members want that. And if we take that ideal seriously, we should never treat differences of opinion as necessarily equivalent to polarisation. Polarisation happens only if some groups of people oppose others for the sake of opposing and not in a reasonable, fair-minded way. Polarisation happens only if vindictiveness and tribalism trump thoughtfulness and basic human decency. No pun intended in the use of the verb "trump", by the way. Secondly, disagreement and agreeing to disagree does not imply disrespect. One can disagree with respect, courtesy and decency. It seems that everyone, nowadays, welcomes that well-worn phrase "robust debate". But we do sometimes hear in this House that the other side has not explained the trade-offs properly and, therefore, was being dishonest in some sense.”
“A place where tomorrow can be better than today for ourselves and, even more so, for our children and grandchildren. Not a place where many cannot even envisage a better tomorrow; not a place where economic pressure and ever-intensifying competition from school to workplace lead to ever greater stratification in living conditions, social capital and social standing. Sir, the first part of my speech will examine how we can cultivate an active citizenry while keeping politics and political discourse fair, vibrant and constructive. The second part will address how we can build economic optimism, so as to create a virtuous cycle of economic dynamism. The third part will suggest "a Singapore model" that can be a beacon for the region and also a bulwark against attempts by great powers to suborn or divide us. Firstly, on politics and political discourse. President Halimah's speech called for "an active citizenry" and "a passionate civil society". She also spoke of the importance of avoiding political polarisation and gridlock, having trust between "our political leadership and people" and keeping political discourse respectful and rational. Such calls are not new. But as I reflected on this, I found that my unease was captured in a public comment from former media editor and academic Bertha Henson. I will quote an excerpt here: "I am always bemused when I hear politicians warning Singaporeans against such 'polarisation'. Our politics is nowhere as partisan. We do not have a two-party system yet nor a civil society which will take to the streets.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in my maiden speech in Parliament over seven years ago, I argued that the Singapore glass is half full. While there are always areas for improvement, we have done well with governmental efficiency and urban planning relative to other countries. However, back then, I said that we have not done as well in fostering strong non-state actors and institutions to balance a strong state. And I would add that we have not done as well in fostering a strong sense of participation in our democracy; a sense that we can speak out and, if needed, disagree with the dominant narrative, with our views actually having a chance to make a difference. An article by Tan and Preece in the Asian Journal of Comparative Politics in December last year reads, and I quote, "We find that mechanisms of diagonal accountability related to media and civil society have declined. Vertical and horizontal accountability remains weak." Published research from the book "The Well-being of Singaporeans" by Tambyah, Tan and Kay, in 2010, reaches similar conclusions. They cite survey data to show that 56% of Singaporeans agree with the statement that, generally speaking, people like me do not have the power to influence Government policy or actions, while another 23% are neutral. Only 20% disagreed. Countries that succeed in drawing strong participation in democracy will be more successful in fostering a confident populace, a people who deeply feel that this is my country, my home – a place where my voice counts for something, a place that I will sacrifice to defend. We all want Singapore to be a country where everyone feels that they have a chance at realising their full potential and giving life to their dreams.”
“I thank the Minister. Just two supplementary questions. Firstly, just to clarify my understanding of what he said, about the relevant authorities taking a nuanced approach looking at the extent of the mental health condition, and also the nature of the mental health condition. I think different types of conditions may have different implications in terms of behaviour and in terms of the propensity to do different things that could affect the actuarial basis of the scheme. So, just wanted to confirm the understanding that you would be looking at severity as well as the type of mental health conditions to decide on eligibility. My second supplementary question is, when looking at these issues, does the Government take into consideration that whatever the actuarial science says about people with mental health conditions who go on to schemes like this, that data may have come about in the past when the extent of diagnosis of mental health conditions was maybe much, much less than what it is now and what it will be in the future, with growing awareness of mental health issues, and as we move away from the stigmatisation and discrimination of people with mental health conditions, and you can expect that more people will be diagnosed – so, are we using data from the past in order to draw an actuarial conclusion about the present day? Is that taken into consideration as well?”
“I thank the Minister of State for her answer. Just two supplementary questions. My understanding of the school bus operator population is that – and I will stand corrected if this is not borne out by the facts – but my understanding is that we have an ageing population and many of these operators are set up as sole proprietorships. They may employ a very small number of people or may drive the buses themselves. Over time, we can expect that there will be exits from the industry. Is the Ministry looking at how to address that? Because as the population ages, there could be certain solutions that we need to look at. For example, facilitating owners of micro businesses to sell their business to a more organised operator – I just mentioned that as one possibility. My second supplementary question is on the school bus services for SPED schools. I wanted to ask what sort of training is made available to the bus operators for SPED schools, given the complexity involved, which is different from just operating a bus for mainstream schools. Sometimes, there could be certain types of skills that they need to have in order to do their job effectively. I have encountered one issue with one of my constituents in the Serangoon ward of the Aljunied Group Representative Constituency. So, I am wondering what sort of training is given to these bus operators.”
“I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Just two supplementary questions. One is in relation to the possibility of legislation in the future. There are countries that have legislated to say that when brands make green claims, they must be able to provide supporting documentation to some kind of authority or independent auditor process. So, will the Government consider this in the future, given how important it is to ensure public confidence in the accuracy of green claims when they are made. Secondly, if I heard the Minister of State correctly, is it fair to say that if there are complaints about greenwashing from members of the public, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or other parties, will those complaints be investigated by the CCCS? Should those complaints be made to CCCS?”
“In the spirit of these observations and to reiterate the arguments put forth by the Leader of the Opposition on this very same point, I hope the Government would consider making public the original internal AAR report developed by Mr Peter Ho and his team, with redactions as regards any matters pertaining to national security or which have commercial sensitivities. This would serve the purpose of greater transparency and a fuller and better-informed public debate on what should be the lessons we learn. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the pandemic was a terrible crisis that exacted an awful price in lives, livelihoods and peace of mind. But Singapore did not fail the test when called upon to exert ourselves and come together for the greater good. That should inspire the current and future generations with a true story of what we can do if we put our minds and hearts to it.”
“Currently, the Healthcare Graduate Studies Award is open to post-graduate courses for Clinical Psychology as one of the 10 other courses of study, such as Audiology, Health Economics and Epidemiology. By contrast, the PSC Scholarship for Medicine and Dentistry targets applications for study only in Medicine and Dentistry. So, the number of post-graduate scholarships dedicated to clinical psychology is probably not as high as for medicine and dentistry and there is no clearly targeted number for clinical psychology alone, for the reasons I explained. This should be addressed. And lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude with some observations about the COVID-19 response White Paper itself. The White Paper appears to be a public communication document. In terms of format, evidence of academic and analytic rigour as well as granularity of detail, it stands in stark contrast to a different paper that was published in 2010 by academics on Singapore’s H1N1 pandemic response. That paper was entitled “Influenza A (H1N1-2009) Pandemic in Singapore – Public Health Control Measures Implemented and Lessons Learnt.” The authors were academics Joanne Tay, Ng Yuek Fan, Jeffrey Cutter and Lyn James. No doubt that was an academic paper rather than a Government White Paper, but that paper seems, at the very least, more detailed and, if I may, more clinical in how it marshals facts and uses them to build conclusions. That paper was also authored by independent academics who drew on interviews with MOH and other officials but did not represent the views of MOH. And it has a much fuller methodological note.”
“I had earlier referred to the pertinent advice that TWC2 had publicly aired back in March 2020, and I believe earlier as well, which we would have done well to heed at that point. One area where NGOs could play an important role is mental health – something my colleague, Sengkang Member of Parliament Ms He Ting Ru referred to. The COVID-19 pandemic took a heavy toll on the mental health of many Singaporeans and people around the world. Due to the general fear and anxiety level, the economic devastation felt by some groups of people even as others prospered and having to work from home and learn from home for prolonged periods. I am aware that the Health Promotion Board (HPB) is developing a national portal for mental health resources to be curated by experts and hosted on HealthHub. In future pandemics and crises, mental health-related NGOs should be empowered, resourced and given information to reach out and persuade those at risk to use the helping resources available, which is not always an easy task and may best be handled by non-state agencies. One area also where we can boost our mental health care capacity for future crises is in terms of our population of psychologists. In reply to a Parliamentary Question from Sengkang Member of Parliament, Ms He Ting Ru, the Government revealed that our number of psychologists per 100,000 of our population is 9.7. This compares to around 30 in the US and 49 in Canada and France, for example. The same ratio for psychiatrists places Singapore under five, versus, for example, 15 for Canada and 24 for Finland. Government scholarships are one tool to increase the number of trained psychologists in the public sector. Training to be a clinical psychologist takes as long as that for medical doctors.”
“A robust migrant workers’ rights regime will help us attract workers who can become more skilled and productive and thus help us to reduce the size of the migrant worker population in Singapore, thereby lessening overall population pressures. And, as I have argued a few times in this House, very skilled tradesmen and technicians from among this migrant worker population should be given an accelerated pathway to Permanent Resident (PR) status and eventually citizenship, so as to strengthen the Singaporean Core in such trade fields. Next, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch on the role of non-governmental organisations (NGOs). I spoke of the migrant worker NGOs who played such a valuable role in the COVID-19 crisis. A more general point I would like to make here is that in future pandemics, there can be a stronger role for NGOs as partners, working with the Government to execute initiatives, but also to inform and critique policies and decision-making, and to disseminate accurate information to their communities. The COVID-19 White Paper refers to the role played by some food aid charities, migrant worker charities, PEERS as well as organisations under the People’s Association (PA) umbrella. However, these organisations were, for the most part, referred to as partners in the execution of projects and workstreams. If a future pandemic or other national crisis happens, I hope the Government can assign a more institutional capacity to involving NGOs who are close to their various constituents on the ground, not only in executing projects but also in formulating and refining policy approaches and in making decisions.”
“I also hope that the COVID-19 episode with migrant workers serves as a powerful reminder to all of us to take the well-being and dignity of workers seriously. In particular, enforcement of rules and norms over all kinds of matters like food quality and access to bank accounts and payslips, for example, and hotlines to aid in enforcement, should be in place and be seen to be working properly by the migrant workers themselves. In this House, I recently called for rewards for migrant worker whistle-blowers who expose genuine safety lapses. There are, potentially, many such ideas through which we can improve the system. And the best generators of ideas are those NGOs who have been working tirelessly and fruitfully to bring migrant worker issues to the forefront of public debate – groups like HOME, TWC2, HealthServe and many others. I hope the Government will lend an active listening ear to such groups, so that, in future, they will not again become like the mythic Greek princess Cassandra, who was fated to utter true prophecies which no one believed and who had to see her prophecies realised. For at the end of the day, taking care of migrant workers is an urgent question of social justice and fairness. As Mahatma Gandhi once said, “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.” But there is more to it than that. By taking care of our migrant workers, we may be able to attract the more effective workers to come and work in Singapore, those who have more experience and a track record and who are capable of becoming more productive and perhaps innovative workers and supervisors. After all, there is competition for migrant workers from other countries, like the Gulf states for example.”
“As an example of the cost to migrant workers of these measures, here is an excerpt from The Guardian newspaper, 17 April 2020, relating to migrant workers in Singapore: "The restrictions, an attempt to reduce further transmission, have left the dormitories even more crowded than usual as only essential workers are permitted to leave. One construction worker, from Bangladesh, told The Guardian there were long queues to use shared bathrooms…" Also, migrant workers lived under prolonged lockdowns when others in the wider Singaporean community could already move freely, despite their vaccination rate already being higher than the average for Singaporeans, affecting their mental health. All movement restrictions were only wound down for migrant workers on 1 March this year. It is good that the White Paper acknowledges that this could, perhaps, have been done sooner. A study conducted by Yale-NUS in 2020 concluded that migrant workers under lockdown conditions in dormitories suffered from higher levels of stress and anxiety. A report in the media outlet TODAY in August 2021 read: "The large number of mental health symptoms reported among workers under complete restrictions suggests that while isolation of whole facilities may be expedient for limiting COVID-19 transmission, this comes at the cost of an increased mental health burden, researchers said." Hence, I would like to ask what is the timeline for the improved standards in migrant worker dormitories to be rolled out nationally, including the role of NEST? And will the Government build on this unfortunate experience to develop a clear plan to manage a major infectious disease outbreak in migrant worker dormitories, with all of the massive logistical challenges that will entail?”
“We also had to make a difficult judgement call on when and how to relax movement restrictions on migrant workers living in dormitories. We could have eased some of the restrictions earlier, especially after most of the workers had been vaccinated and boosted… In the end, we decided to act with an abundance of caution to keep the workers and the broader community safe. But the extended restrictions did take a toll on their well-being." Before I go on, I should acknowledge that it was good that the White Paper recognised the room for improvement on the migrant worker front. I also acknowledge Prime Minister Lee's video message to migrant workers during the pandemic, which was helpful. Widespread infection of the workers could have been mitigated if the Government had taken more decisive action earlier. The light of the oncoming train was flagged out by the NGO Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) as early as 23 March 2020. In its letter to The Straits Times Forum, TWC2 said, "We call on the Government to announce in advance what plans they have to rehouse workers should clusters break out in dorms. This would give reassurance to the resident and non-resident community." The outbreaks at the migrant worker dormitories exposed the cramped conditions that they lived in to many members of the general public for the first time and many Singaporeans were shocked. Despite the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) announcing improved standards for dormitories, anecdotes from migrant workers on the ground show that there is uneven enforcement for the smaller dormitories and there is no timeline yet for the purpose-built dormitories which meet these standards.”
“However, could this not be addressed through scheduling systems that could be run off a centralised IT backbone? Of course, during the COVID-19 pandemic, we did not have the time to put in place all of these systems and processes to enable GPs to play more of a role in the initial phase. But for future pandemics, and given the changes we will make for Healthier SG, could we give some thought to how our GP clinics could play more of a role vis-à-vis private healthcare companies? Mr Speaker, Sir, next, let me move on to the subject of our migrant workers. All Singaporeans ought to recognise the vital role migrant workers play in our society and all of us should be in favour of treating them with the respect and dignity that should be owed to all workers. In fact, I believe many, if not most, Singaporeans these days strongly favour such principles. The COVID-19 outbreak in the migrant workers' dormitories in Singapore will remain a blight on the report card in the way Singapore managed the pandemic. Our health protocols for the next pandemic must include protecting the most vulnerable communities among us. They must not be an afterthought in the next health crisis. On this note, I am glad that the COVID-19 White Paper does recognise some of these issues. And I quote from the White Paper: "In retrospect, the early precautions we took in the dormitories were insufficient. Given the communal living environment, the dormitory outbreak had every possibility of becoming a major disaster. We should have probed deeper and conducted better and earlier ground surveillance, such as by doing dipstick testing on sample populations to make the most of limited testing resources.”
“In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, a great deal of public funding was deployed to engage private healthcare companies to administer vaccinations and to conduct telehealth check-ins and surveillance of quarantine orders and so on. No doubt, at the time, it may have been problematic for GPs to have played more of a role in this effort, at least at the initial stage, due to the very slender staffing and administrative resources that most GPs have. But given the enhancements to the role of GPs that will come about due to Healthier SG, which should see GPs enhance their access to IT and data, for example, I wonder if, in case there is a future pandemic, could GPs play more of a role in the initial response, in terms of vaccination and surveillance? Why do I ask this? It is for a few reasons. Firstly, GPs are locally based across the island. Citizens would have to travel less, be inconvenienced less and interact less with large crowds of people at collective vaccination centres if they obtain vaccinations at GP clinics. Secondly, GPs may be familiar with patients personally, and that familiarity may facilitate better communication and education and a better and less anxious patient experience. Thirdly, anecdotally, it would seem that many GPs are not fully utilised throughout the day in terms of doctor consultation time, though, of course, this is uneven. But I suspect many would have the capacity to take on more of this sort of a role at certain times a day. It could be argued that GP clinics lack the manpower and equipment to play such a role. However, manpower and equipment could be deployed to these clinics from a central pool, as needed. It could also be argued that GP clinics lack the physical space to handle large crowds.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the COVID-19 pandemic put our society to the test in every way. It tested our healthcare workers, our companies and small businesses, our workers, our Government and politics, our NGOs and, indeed, every citizen. The costs and sacrifices were borne unequally, as is the case everywhere in the world that this pandemic touched. For example, in the business sector, some companies prospered exceptionally while many SMEs struggled or closed. But what we can say today is that all the key stakeholders in our system, on the whole, pulled together and acted in the best interest of all. This is what history will remember. When we were tested, we rose to that call. If we had not, the losses and the scars would be far worse today. On that note, I would like to register, alongside all Members of this House, a profound debt of gratitude that we all owe to the frontline workers who toiled at the coalface of this crisis – healthcare workers and many other frontline staff – without whose sacrifice we would have, collectively, paid a much higher price. Mr Speaker, Sir, my speech will touch on four aspects of the post-COVID-19 review, namely, the role of general practitioners (GPs) in the pandemic response, the approach we take to migrant workers, the role of NGOs and some observations on the COVID-19 White Paper itself. Firstly, on the role of GPs, Sir. There are about 1,800 GP clinics in Singapore providing around 80% of primary healthcare services to our citizens. Under the newly-launched Healthier SG, the role of GPs will be enhanced to become more proactive on the preventive healthcare front.”
“Sir, one quick supplementary question. Is the Government looking at the cap of 80 hours per week, I believe, that is still in place? Previously in the House, I have mentioned that there is evidence from other jurisdictions that you can get the same training outcomes with the cap of 70 hours per week, so will that be reviewed by this committee?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank the Minister for his reply. Just one supplementary question on the general principle behind when these disclosures of ongoing investigations are made. When the Government decides that it is in the public interest to make a disclosure about an ongoing investigation, what are the safeguards put in place to make sure that that disclosure into the public domain does not prejudice in some way the conduct of due process and subsequent trial and so on that may happen later on?”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. I appreciate the points made by Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua. Just one supplementary question. That is in relation to the suggestions I made about significantly enhancing the ComCare grant quantums in line with minimum income standard research, extending the runway perhaps to a year and making the application process less onerous in terms of interviewing family members and documents and so on. My clarification would be: would the Ministry be open to experimentation, doing a pilot to see if we do these things and make significant changes, whether the net benefits will outweigh the risk or the downside in terms of reducing that bandwidth tax, reducing the stress, enabling that trampoline effect where families are able to plan ahead and plan a turnaround in their life? And also, just improving the outcomes of their children as they go through this life that they have to go through, which they did not choose to go through. Would the Ministry be open to that? I think Assoc Prof Jamus Lim made some similar suggestions as well. So, the role of experimentation and pilots. 8.00 pm”
“Also, SMTA offers assistance for three to six months, requiring applicants to re-apply frequently and providing them with less leeway or runway to plan ahead for their finances, while sometimes generating tremendous stress about the renewal, stress that can affect decision-making, impose bandwidth tax. Can the Government consider a pilot test of a longer period of nine to 12 months for such assistance, to see if this generates better outcomes in terms of encouraging that mental energy and capacity to plan ahead, to turn their lives around and also lead to better outcomes for their children? ComLink”
“I wonder if the sheer number of named schemes can be housed under a smaller number of schemes, with officers empowered with the ability to cover more adjacent schemes so that there is less forwarding of applicants from one officer to another. Secondly, there are potential schemes offered by various agencies that have not yet been incorporated onto the portal, such as the Ministry of Health (MOH) subsidies or bursaries administered by educational institutions. Awareness about various schemes has been identified as a problem previously, in a study conducted by Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry (REACH) in 2014. It would be good to build upon a centralised platform to reduce the administrative strain of multiple means tests and application processes for all schemes. Financial Assistance Application Process Mr Chairman, applicants for financial assistance are burdened with presenting documents and also often face the embarrassment of having family members interviewed. Would the Ministry consider having two formal means of application? For applicants who agree to presenting documents and having family members interviewed, they can do so. For those who have difficulty finding documents or do not wish to have their family members interviewed, they can instead choose to declare that the information that they provide is accurate. Should they be found to have made a false declaration later, they could be subject to penalties. According to an MSF report, 40% of households are already having their applications treated flexibly. Hence, I urge the Ministry to consider providing such a declarative option.”
“Mr Chairman, the ComCare Endowment Fund has been topped up by $300 million. What is the impact this has on ComCare's dollar payouts and the number of people assisted? From ComCare's reports, it appears that individuals on average received Short-to-Medium Term Assistance (SMTA) worth $1,700 a year in 2021, $2,300 in 2020, $1,600 in 2019, and $1,400 in 2018, and $1,300 in 2017. Annual growth is at about 7%, which is less than the increase in Government revenue and Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) over the same period. I would argue that this derived average of about $150 a month is not enough in most cases for a core welfare scheme. Similarly, the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) provides about $300 in cash per month. Silver Support pays less than that. For someone earning a little over $1,000 or less, these schemes do defray expenses, but assessed against academic research on minimum income standards, as I alluded to in last year's Budget debate, this is woefully inadequate for care protection and bouncing back. Would MSF at least trial higher ComCare amounts to test the effect on real outcomes, including on the trampoline effect to enable a family to bounce back rather than having to be too anxious about day-to-day survival to plan ahead? Financial Assistance Accessibility Mr Chairman, the Government has pushed out an increasing number of schemes over the years to support Singaporeans in need. This is commendable, although I have concerns over the quantum of core aid schemes, as mentioned. To manage the many available schemes, the SupportGoWhere website was established where Singaporeans can search and get information in a single place. However, the application processes are still separately administered.”
“I would like to ask how long CDC takes for cash assistance to be disbursed and could all financial assistance be centralised at the systems level. Making ComLink Work”
“Currently, I understand that residents have to approach both the FSC social worker and the CDC, going through means testing twice. From the Parliamentary Questions I have asked, ComCare disbursements take four weeks, on average, or up to six weeks to disburse. CDC takes two to three weeks for COVID-19 grants and financial assistance.”
“My colleague, Mr Gerald Giam, raised a related issue recently. Secondly, an ageing population means caregivers are in demand. This is often near-full-time work. Grant quantums are low and are not meant to replace paid work. For instance, the Home Caregiving Grant pays $200. Again, there is a dearth of research here. Another underserved group is inmates. Inmates get 30 cents to $2.60 per hour at prison workshops. I have heard from ex-inmates that work programmes pay up to around $1,000 monthly. Has the Government studied the financial impact of incarceration and whether this, in turn, has impacts on poverty and recidivism? Sir, I would like to suggest that financial and other state interventions for these at-risk groups be centralised under one agency under MSF, rather than be dispersed among different Ministries like MINDEF and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), so that expertise, resources and economies of scale around addressing poverty can be centralised and shared. Capabilities at Social Service Offices Mr Chairman, our Family Service Centres (FSCs) and Social Service Offices (SSOs) are intended to be the core nodes for social support. Our social workers are best placed to understand and respond to residents' needs. Social workers help point residents to more specific assistance schemes, such as those for students. I would like to ask if trained social workers participate in the decisions made by SSO staff. Such professional training should be brought to bear on financial assistance decisions, as opposed to taking a rigid schemes administration approach. Also, would the Ministry consider centralising under SSO social workers all financial assistance schemes that are not sector-specific? This includes Community Development Council (CDC) cash assistance.”
“Mr Chairman, the trampoline is used to talk about helping individuals bounce back. Safety nets are equally important but, today, I will make proposals to improve the trampoline. Firstly, the Global Nutrition Report says Singapore is "off course" to prevent the prevalence of overweight children under five from increasing. The cost of healthy eating is a key reason why we say it is expensive to be poor. Would the Government consider offering vouchers programmed to help parents buy healthier foods, like whole fruits and vegetables, to help children start off on the right foot? Secondly, financial literacy needs to be hands-on as it involves trust and experience in research-based concepts. Discourse builds this trust. For schools, MoneySENSE co-funds vendor talks and workshops covering at least one of three tiers: basic money management, financial planning and investment know-how. Since schools infuse financial literacy in Character and Citizenship Education and Food and Consumer Education curricula, could they dovetail the three MoneySENSE tiers into existing curricula to avoid repetition while ensuring good coverage of topics? Poverty Relief for Specific Segments Mr Chairman, I want to draw attention to three possibly underserved groups in our social service landscape. With full-time National Servicemen (NSFs), allowances start at $580, going up to $1,280 or more, depending on vocation. In most cases, NSFs need to depend on their family, at least in terms of housing and are unlikely to be able to save anything without this support. Has the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) or other Government bodies studied whether these allowances have resulted in increased poverty within this group, for those from poorer families?”