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 21 of 25.
“For example, after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, DARPA organised a Robotics Challenge that spanned four years, aiming to spur research and technological advancement in the field of disaster robotics. The prize for the fastest robot to navigate an obstacle course based on conditions in Fukushima was $2 million and was won by the South Korean team. Such large-scale competitions do not only stimulate innovation and the progress of the industry, but also encourage the right qualities of perseverance, creativity and teamwork among those in the R&D field. The resulting intellectual property could be harnessed to benefit the Singapore economy. I would like to suggest that the Government, perhaps through public-private partnerships, hold competitions with significant grants or prizes to stimulate commercialisable idea generation from companies, campuses, research institutes (RIs), research centres (RCs) and the general public, with some conditions attached to facilitate the use of the resulting IP for the benefit of the Singapore economy. Private Sector Role in Economic Planning Sir, private sector staff do serve on the Boards of our many economic agencies. But I suggest that we make more use of secondments of staff from private companies to the public sector to serve short stints to help with economic planning or promotion initiatives. In the UK, the central civil service has just introduced a new framework for managing secondments into and out of civil service jobs, aimed at building meaningful links between the civil service and business leaders. Sir, I have met a few such private sector secondees into the British public service in the past and they demonstrated a keen knowledge of both private sector norms and constraints, as well as public sector priorities.”
“Yes, please. Sir, we need to nurture RIE as a key driver of Singapore's economic success. What is equally important is to thoroughly review the economic impact of such public sector R&D spending so that we know what is working and what is not. Here, I have three questions. Aside from the published data for the public R&D sector like employees, projects, patents, startup numbers, R&D spending and so on, does the Ministry study and publish the economic multipliers resulting from this spending? For instance, which fields of R&D have the highest long-term multiplier effect? Secondly, what has been the economic impact of intellectual property (IP) generated from the R&D spent? For example, has this IP helped to create total business spending in the wider economy and, if so, how much. Thirdly, does the Ministry also have a count of jobs that are directly or indirectly generated from that IP? Running and publishing regular analyses of this nature for Parliament and the public to review would help to ensure that our R&D spending is optimised for economic and other benefits. Such analyses do not preclude some R&D spending going to knowledge creation for intrinsically altruistic and academic purposes. But knowing exactly what the economic impact is makes for greater transparency and better decision-making. Innovation Competitions The second cut is on innovation competitions. Sir, the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in America holds competitions, such as the DARPA Robotics Challenge, DARPA Urban Challenge, where participants from various backgrounds and disciplines are challenged to develop revolutionary solutions to practical problems.”
“Mdm Chairperson, the role of the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) to be a place where strayed lives can be steered back on course is crucial and deserves the support of the whole of society. In August last year, during the debate on the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency Bill, I asked the Minister for Education to consider how to push training and education content via, say, an e-learning platform to those serving prison sentences. I am raising this again and I would like to highlight two statistics from the Singapore Prison Service. In 2014 to 2015, despite only a 1% decline in the total number of inmates, there was a 7% decline in the number of inmates trained in 2014 and a 6% decline in 2015. There was also a 4% decline in the number of inmates engaged in work programmes. Why are fewer inmates getting access to training programmes? Can we consider different ways of enabling training for prisoners? Can SkillsFuture support our prisons by providing more platforms for education and training content for our inmates? Pushing training to prisoners will facilitate the rehabilitation process help make them productive workers and even, possibly, entrepreneurs in their future. SkillsFuture can be used for e-learning or for training conducted within incarceration or detention premises. In the United States (US), we hear examples of prisoners obtaining university degrees while serving their sentences. As SPS says, serving time should never be a waste of time.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister for his reply. Just a few quick supplementary questions. Would there be anything to stop a private organisation from setting up their own private eco-labelling initiative? Will there be anything in the law or elsewhere that would stop a private organisation from doing so, without any connections with international standard bodies or any of the other bodies like SEC that the Minister mentioned? And if there are no such restrictions, how would consumers be able to tell if this is really a credible eco-labelling or otherwise?”
“I thank the Minister of State for his answer. I just have a few supplementary questions. Have there been any cases that the Ministry is aware of where because of the inability to pay, the resident of the nursing home could not continue to reside in the nursing home? Second, is there a procedure for what nursing homes should do in case they decide that the bill is not being paid and they cannot afford to keep the resident there?”
“I appreciate what the Senior Minister of State has said. I had, as I mentioned in my cut, actually met a number of new citizens who are not clear about this. My clarification would be: what would be the problem or impediment to just including a write-up to educate new citizens about that in the guidebook? What would be the issue in doing that?”
“Madam, may I just make one last clarification?”
“That is not the case. I was referring to my PQ last year in response to your clarification to my clarification. You asked if I only have this concern about new citizens. I do not. I do have this concern for born-in-Singapore citizens as well. But my cut is about new citizens.”
“My cut is specifically asking about new citizens and the new citizen guidebook, and if there can be some education.”
“The Senior Minister of State may not be aware that I have, in fact, raised this as a Parliamentary Question (PQ) about born-in-Singapore citizens. I raised it as a PQ to Minister Ng Chee Meng, I believe, and it was answered last year that this education gap could also be an issue for born-in-Singapore citizens. I do not only have that concern for new citizens. It is also a concern for born-in-Singapore citizens. I asked if the school curriculum could educate students on that, and that was a PQ that is in the Hansard. I asked that last year. But my cut here is in the context of new citizens only. So, that is what I am referring to in this particular instance. But it is also an issue for born-in-Singapore citizens.”
“Thank you, Madam. I just want to thank Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo for her response. I just want to seek a few clarifications regarding my cut on the new Singapore Citizenship Journey. Firstly, would the Senior Minister of State recognise the grave consequences to our democratic society if all citizens, including new and born-in-Singapore citizens, do not fully understand that their votes are secret? Would the Senior Minister of State further not recognise that with 20,000 new citizens a year, this is equivalent to one SMC, one GRC for parliamentary term, the consequences to our democracy will be grave if a significant minority, even the majority of them, do not understand that their votes are secret? Given that, and my clarification, the third point is: would the Senior Minister of State agree to insert a short write-up in the new citizen guidebook explaining how votes are kept secret during the electoral process and, if not, why not? And lastly, if there is a doubt about the facts, would the Government not agree to conducting a study to ascertain if this is, indeed, something that not all new citizens fully understand?”
“If it is in doubt, can we conduct a study to ascertain whether the new citizens truly understand that their votes are kept secret? Childcare and Pre-school Support”
“Mdm Chairperson, new citizens undergo the Singapore Citizenship journey (SCJ) so as to familiarise them with our national norms, culture, history and institutions. However, I am concerned about the possibility of one-sidedness in the political education exposure that new citizens receive. In the SCJ HOME for new citizens guide, there are brief overviews of our political system explaining the role of elections, Parliament and so on. However, two matters stand out that are of concern. 4.00 pm Firstly, in the SCJ community sharing sessions, new citizens and prospective new citizens are exposed to grassroots organisations under the People's Association (PA)'s umbrella. In the course of the SCJ process, such as citizenship ceremonies, for example, they are exposed to and may get to meet People's Action Party politicians but not politicians from other parties. Secondly, I have met a few new citizens who have told me that they are concerned that their citizenship will be taken away if they did not vote for the People's Action Party. One example stands out in my mind. One older new citizen who is highly educated in credential, told me that he supported more balance and competition in our system but was afraid that if he voted for the Workers' Party, the Government would find out and take away his citizenship. We spent 10 minutes trying to explain the process by which votes are kept secret. At the end of the 10 minutes, I am not sure if we had convinced him. Will the Government find ways to expose new citizens to members of other political parties and, more importantly, will it include an element of education to train them how their votes are kept secret in the electoral process? I could not find this being treated at all in the HOME for new citizens guidebook.”
“Okay. The last point is that I just wanted to ask the Finance Minister again about the timing of the price hikes that we have seen. As other Members have alluded to, the Government did have the option of either pre-announcing some of these price hikes, and/or phasing or staggering them, and/or deffering them. So, given that there have been four price hikes − gas, water, electricity and parking − all within a space of three months, at a time when GDP growth is the lowest it has been since 2009, jobseekers outnumber job vacancies and so on. And given that the Government has shared that the reasons behind these are not political − and I believe that was shared yesterday − can the Minister help Singaporeans understand a little better? What are the non-political reasons behind timing the price hikes in this way?”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I just have three points of clarifications for the Minister for Finance. Before I start, I just want to wish the Minister many more years of good health. I thank him for his hard work on the Budget. My first point is regarding the presentation of the Budget Statement. I raised this in my speech. Will the Minister for Finance consider presenting one or two pages in future Budget Statements which presents the Budget according to IMF guidelines, reflecting the total net amounts of money leaving the economy to the state, and money that the state is pumping back into the economy? This is so that Singaporeans can make a well-informed assessment of whether future Budgets are expansionary enough to facilitate genuine, democratic consensus formation. Secondly, I would just like to refer back to the net births of companies' statistics that I cited in my speech to ask what is the Minister's evaluation of the state of the SME sector. Because I highlighted that net birth of companies has been plunging in 2016. The last time we saw such a figure was in 2009. And if we push the data series even further back, the last time we saw a below-10,000 net birth figure was —”
“Just one supplementary question for the Minister. Has SMRT or LTA experienced such incidents before that may not have come to public attention and, if so, what is the frequency of that?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for her answer. Just a few supplementary questions. There would appear to be a scientific division of opinions on this question. For example, I believe the British Royal College of Physicians does believe that lower risk tobacco products can be a gateway to help smokers to move away from higher risk products, tobacco-based products which have tar, although I know there are some other bodies that disagree with it. Would the Ministry consider two things: firstly, conducting a study to evaluate the health effects on users as well as on those in the surroundings, in terms of the passive smokers? Secondly, depending on the results of the study, would the Ministry consider perhaps a pilot or trial programme to allow only smokers who have registered, perhaps with the smoking cessation programme of the HPB, to have access to those products on a very limited basis − if the results of the study suggest that the positive effects outweigh the negative effects?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. Just one supplementary question; maybe this is just a confirmation. The process that Factually follows to decide which issues to talk about, is that process fundamentally about collecting feedback from various Ministries, Government agencies and Statutory Boards? Or has Factually in the past and will it in the future, be open to feedback from other non-government organisations to address on the website? Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Madam, the Member is correct that we do source the information and the claims from various sources within the Government and also from outside the Government. In fact, periodically, we do public engagement exercises and sessions, and during these sessions, some concerns may be raised by members of the public and we will look into them. If we think there is enough of interest in that subject matter that has purveyed some misperceptions, we will clarify.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. Going forward, when the Government presents measures in the Budget or through other platforms in relation to air quality, will the Government also consider providing an estimate of the positive impact on healthcare costs, MediShield Life and other components of healthcare costs, so that a better assessment can be made about the investments that we are putting into air quality and the likely savings that may result in healthcare costs on the other side of the equation?”
“That may affect the willingness of the people to become entrepreneurs because there may be many schemes on the table now, but in 10 years, those schemes may be phased out. It is in that context that I raised land cost, funding and the overall culture. So, what would be the Government's strategy to address that fundamental structural impediment to entrepreneurship?”
“Okay. So, my clarificatory point would be: does the Government actually track how many SMEs take advantage of these schemes and grow, and stop becoming SMEs and actually become global companies? Is there a number to that? Are those results being tracked? And if in fact those results are tracked and those results are not good, then would that not suggest that there is a role for the Government to take a more active stance in grooming these companies? The second point is relating to funding. I would like to ask the Minister whether there is any data from SMEs through surveys and other means to suggest that the funding needs that they have are being sufficiently met by existing schemes and by other funding providers within the funding ecosystem. Because I certainly do hear feedback that the funding needs are not fully met. And would the Minister not acknowledge that if so, would there not be a role for the Government to actually be more interventionist to provide funding at higher levels of caps for those SMEs which have self-selected themselves by demonstrating a track record of results as opposed to SMEs who remain SMEs for decades. My third point is really on the issue of long-termism, which I raised. People will not become entrepreneurs if they feel that, structurally and culturally, the environment is not conducive to SMEs. There are many schemes, there have been in the past. But some of these schemes have limits. Some of these schemes will be phased out in the future, in the way that the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) is being tapered down, for example. Some of the current schemes will be phased out.”
“Sure. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me a chance to make a few points. I would like to thank the Minister for Trade and Industry for his detailed and comprehensive talk on the schemes available to SMEs. My first point is really on the results of these schemes. There are many and various schemes and some of these schemes have had precursors, for example —”
“I would like to make some clarificatory points to the Minister for Trade and Industry.”
“I thank the hon Member for raising those points. On the first point, he asked about the optimal level of land sales. In our speeches, we have not put forward a model of land sales nor have we put forward an alternative Budget model. What we have asked for previously is to understand the expansionary or contractionary effect of all the measures in the Budget, including land sales, including possible cash spending from the Government and funds that may not be reflected in the basic and primary deficit as well as the overall surplus or deficit. We want to have that clarity because that is needed to assess to what extent the Budget is really expansionary. On the second point, this is something that we did not touch on in our speech. I think for SME development, we did give a number of ideas and suggestions. I do not think we brought up our proposals on manpower per se in the speeches that we made. So, I do not wish to comment on that at this point. I direct the Member's attention to ideas and suggestions we made about local SME development. 5.17 pm”
“Madam, in conclusion, while we do recognise the positive moves in Budget 2017, we question the timing of some of the measures that will raise costs as well as their necessity and justification. We question whether more can be done to support a beleaguered economy at this time. And above all, we question the missed opportunities to make decisive bold moves in local enterprise development, risk-pooling and education to pivot Singapore towards truly finding its place in the sun in the 21st century.”
“The Government takes pride in our Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) scores. But equally important to competitive success in the 21st century are "skills" like lateral thinking, creative problem-solving, leadership, communication and self-confidence, as I spoke about during COS 2016. Can we sustain the current high academic content workload and add the cultivation of these softer attributes on top, like the icing on a cake? Will our students be able to cope with these demands? Some recent research suggests that there is generally an inverse correlation between a country's PISA score and that country's Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) score which measures entrepreneurial qualities. An over-emphasis on high stakes academic testing may hold back the cultivation of these elusive entrepreneurial qualities. I am not arguing that we should reduce our PISA scores in the hope that our GEM score will go up, nor am I saying that having both a high PISA and GEM score is impossible. In fact, Finland is one such outlier country which has high scores on both metrics. But in striving for very high academic standards we must always measure, publish and debate the impact of that academic workload on the cultivation of other qualities in our young people to ensure the right balance. My colleague Mr Png Eng Huat has spoken about the need to study the reasons behind the vast tuition industry in Singapore. Raw academic performance can always be inflated upwards with enough academic pressure from schools and families, enough tuition, model answers, 10-year series and discipline. But to what end? Are we helping our children compete in the world of disruption that they will live in when they grow up?”
“Madam, one of the opportunities missed by CFE and Budget 2017 is about fostering risk-taking. It is no coincidence that the countries with the most innovative companies and disruptors are also the countries which have a larger role for social safety nets and risk-pooling. There are two aspects that stand out. One is managing the risks of redundancies from ever shortening product lifecycles and continuous disruption. Here, Ms Sylvia Lim has proposed the redundancy insurance scheme during the Budget Debate 2016. The second is retirement adequacy. Most Singaporeans do not have enough in their Central Provident Fund (CPF) to live on when they retire, as the Prime Minister discussed in his National Day Rally speech in 2013, necessitating some kind of monetisation of their HDB flat, which is not always an easy straightforward or happy process, or continuing to work till they are much older. This is due to high property prices depleting the CPF Ordinary Account. Managing these risks are important if a globalised open economy and society is to thrive. We must create enough security and confidence for Singaporeans to become the disruptors, and not the disrupted. There have been some measures announced to address these issues over the past few years, but the basic structural impediments remain. Most households are exposed to cyclical economic risks without robust safety nets and risk-pooling, reinforcing a tendency to focus on short-term cash flow. This makes it less likely that they will set up companies, take risks to innovate, take time off work for education, reskilling or training, because they cannot afford to. Lastly, Madam, our education system excels at training literacy and numeracy to a high standard.”
“Madam, we also need to step up education about entrepreneurship to our students, and I have raised this in past Parliamentary Questions. Time does not permit me to delve too deeply on this subject, but we can and should do more to enable our students to understand how entrepreneurship is both a viable and a socially meaningful calling. Right now, I fear that most of our aspiring students dream of becoming civil servants or working in an MNC. On funding, in New Zealand, for example, an SME can obtain a bank loan for a merger and acquisition project overseas based on a certain price-earnings ratio. In countries like Switzerland, Germany and Japan, local banks have close ties to local companies in particular states or prefectures, and both parties see a commonality of long-term interests. Is such funding easy to obtain in Singapore? Of course, I fully recognise that not all ideas and companies are fundable. But that is precisely the point. Should we not make our support to companies much more selective − with much more generous support at higher caps given to companies which truly have the track record of results and the acumen and ambition to succeed globally, with that sort of support being scaled down, if the results are not delivered, or if the results do not benefit Singapore? Should we not move decisively away from schemes of an administration mindset to a results-driven mindset in SME development? It is this kind of tough-minded results-driven approach which enabled Japan and Korea to groom world-leading companies in the 1960s and 1970s, companies that, to this day, employ many people in their home countries, both directly and indirectly, in the form of complex chains of suppliers and sub-contractors.”
“Why introduce all these price hikes now at a time of relative economic fragility, when they could tip some SMEs at the margins over the edge, when they increase the hardships faced by Singaporeans beset with job market insecurities? Why not introduce some of them later when there is an up-swing in external demand? Next, I will speak about local enterprises. Budget 2017 has not made a decisive shift towards building local enterprises as an engine of value-creation, alongside MNCs and Government-linked companies (GLCs). This is a huge missed opportunity. There are some initiatives to address SME funding, and there are some new measures announced at this Budget, for example, tweaks to IFS and the new Globalisation Fund. These are welcomed moves to be sure, but is this enough to uncage our local firms? Commercial and industrial rents and land costs are still very high relative to the region's. When this was debated in the COS in 2016, the reply was that we do not need more measures, because the retail and industrial space market was already softening due to market forces. However, the Government should understand that for entrepreneurs, it is not all about the costs today, but what will be the costs tomorrow. An entrepreneur will not invest blood, sweat and tears to build the business, only to see commercial rentals surge due to market forces and wipe out his/her commercial viability in five or 10 years' time. They think about the long-term future outlook. A larger share of JTC in commercial and industrial space and a smaller share held by real estate investment trusts, as was the case in the past, or another similar suite of policies, would help to underscore that long-term assurance to entrepreneurs and would-be entrepreneurs.”
“Madam, the recent Budgets from the Government have tended to follow a pattern − racking up a surplus in the early part of the Parliamentary term and then incurring deficit spending towards the end of the term, close to the General Elections. So much so that some economists now openly predict the Budgets in certain years will be election year Budgets that spend off the accumulated surplus from the preceding term of Parliament. Has the Government held back on fiscal stimulus in 2017, so as to keep ammunition in reserve for closer to the elections? Seven hundred million dollars in construction projects have been brought forward. Has the Government considered bringing forward projects in other areas of expenditure than construction − ICT projects, for example? This will provide a greater and more sectorally-balanced stimulus. My colleagues will comment and discuss in detail on the water price hike and other price hikes and taxes. But let me make a few observations now. The timing of these price hikes seems more synchronised to the political cycle than to the economic cycle. The economy is facing numerous problems and net births of companies are plunging. Is this the right time to raise the electricity tariff, gas price, parking fees and, last but not least, the water price, all within the space of a few months? Madam, what is the justification for these price hikes and their timing? Hitting the economy with these multiple price hikes within the space of a few months may make good political sense, because people have three years to forget them, before the next General Election. But do they make good economic sense?”
“To take a micro example of what I am referring to here, Budget 2017 announced a new SkillsFuture Leadership Development Initiative (LDI) to groom corporate leaders, which is good. Yet an initiative to groom Singaporeans to become leaders in global companies had already been announced several years back. What lessons were learnt from that? Turning now to Budget 2017, is it a Budget that deals with the economic situation we are in? The Minister for Finance said that 2016 was an expansionary Budget, meaning to say, in crude terms, and at the risk of some over-simplification, that the state was pumping in more money into the economy than it was taking out, because the basic deficit was $5.6 billion in 2016. In 2017, the basic deficit is projected to be $8.2 billion or about 2% of GDP, which would imply an expansionary budget again, even if the deficit turns out to be smaller by a few billions due to conservative budgeting, as it almost certainly will be. But what if we properly reflect the cash going out of the economy to the state in the form of land sales, projected to be $8.2 billion in 2017, net of other elements that may not be reflected, such as the actual cash spending of endowments and funds? Once all of these items are accounted for, is the Budget as expansionary as the basic deficit of $8.2 billion would suggest? I would like to ask the Government if it can include a section in future Budget Books that presents our National Budget and quantifies the surplus or deficit according to the methodology prescribed by the International Monetary Fund. Such transparency is important to enable Singaporeans to make up their own minds as to whether future Budgets are, indeed, an effective response to current economic realities.”
“That refers to the formation minus cessation of companies, companies, generally being larger and more economically-weighty entities than proprietorships. In the last three months of 2016, the net births of companies have plunged. Since December 2015, this indicator has registered negative net births of companies four times − in four months out of 13. The total net births figure for 2016 was about 6,000. For the previous four years, it ranged between 12,000 and 21,000. In fact, in the last 10 years, this figure has fallen below 10,000 only twice. In 2009, the year of the financial crisis, and last year, 2016. Madam, our SME sector employs two-thirds of Singaporeans. The SME sector situation is seriously challenged at the present moment. Madam, we all want Singapore to be exceptional, to be a shining Red Dot. But how can we make sure that the Red Dot does not dim for our children and our grandchildren? What was lacking in the CFE report was a deep self-examination about why we are producing these kinds of results. From deep self-examination, and even self-criticism, could come fresh thinking. Our drive towards high productivity is not new. It began decades ago. Yet, we have produced weak results. The US, Korea, Hong Kong and Australia have better real productivity growth compounded on an annual basis from 2004 to 2014, according to one analysis published in The Straits Times on 24 April 2016. Madam, we recognise the problem with our total fertility rate (TFR) in the 1980s, and yet we have not succeeded in reversing the decline, so much so that our TFR today is among the very lowest in the developed world. Yet other developed countries have reversed their TFR decline, such as Japan, France and some Scandinavian countries.”
“Mdm Speaker, Singapore's economy is at a crossroads. In the past, lies an economy driven by foreign direct investments, state initiatives and capital and labour inputs. In the future, lies the dream of an economy driven more by productivity and innovation, local enterprises and private initiatives. How do we move from A to B? CFE outlined a few broad strategies. Some have criticised these for being too broad, but I do acknowledge that there are details contained in the ITMs and other Governmental statements outside the CFE report. There was also not a great deal that was new in the CFE report. A few new ideas, like the Global Innovation Alliance, for example, but not many. For the most part, CFE referred to and affirmed existing initiatives. I acknowledge, however, that we should not value novelty for novelty's sake. If indeed, what we are doing now has little room for improvement because it is delivering results, then so be it. But is what we are doing now delivering the results that we need? Madam, our economic growth in 2015 and 2016 was about 2%, the slowest since the financial crisis year of 2009. As at December 2016, jobseekers continue to outnumber job vacancies in Singapore for the first time since 2012. Low headline unemployment belies deepening insecurity in the job market, with rising redundancies, reports of under-employment and more people taking up jobs in the less secure gig economy, not all from choice. As it is well known, productivity performance in recent times has been poor and far below our target. According to one city-level study cited by the Prime Minister in 2012, our per capita GDP is not even among the top 20 cities worldwide. Madam, let us take another indicator − net births of companies.”
“Thank you, Madam. Just two brief clarification questions to the Minister. The first is just to be a bit more specific on the requirements for licensing of personnel within the early childhood sector. For those individuals who have strong qualifications either from abroad or locally, would the Ministry actually consider an abridged or accelerated version of the PQAC-accredited advance diploma to allow them to serve? The second clarification is really in regard to the point I raised about absenteeism. If such a system is not already in place, would Ministry consider requiring early childhood centres to flag out to the Ministry children who are persistently absent as potential candidates for KidSTART when that programme is expanded in the future?”
“In other words, absenteeism by children from poor families may be very high. Will the Ministry conduct a study of this absenteeism phenomenon and also consider policies to address this? Such policies could include making preschool compulsory or providing some conditional benefit to parents from such families to ensure high attendance rates, which is the idea behind the Bolsa Familia policy.”
“Children who miss the boat because their families lack the money or understanding to invest in their preschool years will struggle in primary school and are likely to become demoralised, widening the gap with their peers. This could be why the director of a social service centre I spoke to shared that he is now seeing cases which are the children of the at-risk clients he served over 20 years ago. It is well-accepted that programmes that reward poor families for keeping their children in school can play a helpful role in breaking the poverty cycle. The pioneering programme globally in this respect was the Bolsa Familia programme in Brazil which has inspired many similar programmes around the world. The Bolsa Familia basically incentivises, and I am saying this at the risk of some over-simplification, poor families to keep their children in school. It is also well-known that many other developed countries offer partly free preschool education. In Sweden, all children receive at least 525 hours per year free of charge, beginning from when the child reaches the age of three. In the longer term, and as a first step, will the Ministry explore the idea of making a more aggressive financial intervention to provide free, good quality kindergarten and childcare to all at-risk children in poor families, perhaps tied to certain conditions? There is already an initiative which the Minister launched previously, KidSTART, that can serve as the platform for a more expansionary vision here. Moreover, there is anecdotal evidence that children from many poor, low-income families sometimes attend kindergartens or childcare centres only a few times a month which is the minimum to continue receiving the KiFAS or Cebtre-based Financial Assistance for Childcare subsidies.”
“If it is on par with the standards required under this Bill, will it not be more reasonable and efficient to transfer supervisory oversight over MOE kindergartens to ECDA, thus alleviating the oversight burden on the part of MOE headquarters and levelling the inspection and enforcement playing field? Lastly, Madam, I would like to make a very exploratory suggestion. The quality of preschool education has been shown to be a critical factor in determining educational success downstream. This was argued by an Economist Interlligence Unit (EIU) report entitled "Starting Well" commissioned by the Lien Foundation in 2012. The same well-known report placed Singapore 30th in the global ranking of preschool education quality, and 21st in terms of affordability. We do face a challenge of inequality in Singapore with Gini coefficients above the 40 level. These have been coming down, which is a positive development, but they are still very high by the standards of other developed countries. Madam, breaking the poverty cycle should be a priority for Singapore. Not only is this right thing to do from the standpoint of social justice, not only will this help cement social solidarity and protect us from the divisive politics that is being seen in some other countries in the world today, it will also help unlock talent that could power our economic future, fire our imagination and inspire our spirits. One of the children in a large poor family living in a Housing and Development Board (HDB) rental flat today could be the next Ron Sim or Sim Wong Hoo, the next Joseph Schooling, Yip Pin Xiu or Theresa Goh, the next Iskandar Jalil, the next Catherine Lim. We know how important it is to ingrain good learning habits at a very young age.”
“As such, a consultative approach to policy development and implementation is seen as key in galvanising support and moving the sector forward." "One example of a consultative approach could entail the setting up of an independent advisory body comprising representatives from different key stakeholders, such as preschool teachers, service providers, teacher training providers, health professionals, family educators, community workers, social workers, parents, VWOs and other relevant agencies and experts who are involved in the care and education of young children." Madam, such a consultative approach to policy formulation recommended by experts, as I quoted above, is advisable given the rapid pace of research and innovation in this field. Since the Opening of the 13th Parliament in January 2016, the Government has stated that one of its key themes is partnership. Such consultative policy formulation and implementation would demonstrate that such commitments are being honoured in practice and not only in rhetoric. Next, as my colleague Assoc Prof Daniel Goh has argued, the exemption for MOE kindergartens is hard to accept. In its consultation paper of 20 November 2015, ECDA said that the MOE kindergartens are exempt because of strict oversight from MOE headquarters and because MOE is accountable to Parliament. This seems to conflict two functions − broad oversight on the one hand and operational inspection responsibility to ensure quality standards and service delivery on the other. If, indeed, MOE's regulation of MOE kindergartens is stricter than the standards required under the ECDA Act, that is problematic from the standpoint of equity.”
“" I would like to ask the Ministry: does it expect a major consolidation in the industry as a result of this Bill? If so, what will be done to ensure that this takes place in a way that protects diversity and choice while also safeguarding the interests of the children? For example, will other Government agencies like the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board (SPRING), reach out to the sector to provide advice and the systems in respect mergers and acquisitions or alliance possibilities? Next, on licensing requirements, will ECDA demonstrate flexibility on a case-by-case basis in line with the spirit of the regulations? The case in point may be where individual teachers may possess good qualifications from institutes abroad or at home and could be required to undertake an abridged or accelerated form of the current Pre-School Qualification Accreditation Committee (PQAC) accredited advanced diploma that is required. Will ECDA practise flexibility and accept different pathways to accreditation of personnel, taking into question individual professional qualifications and their experience, or will it rigidly require all professionals to conform to the same PQAC-accredited pathway? Next, will the Ministry consider setting up an independent advisory body to inform policy formulation? This was the recommendation from a study authored by Dr Lynn Ang for the Lien Foundation in 2012 referring to the preschool sector. And I quote from the study, "While the increasing Government involvement to regulate the sector is generally welcomed by most participants in the study, there is a concern that the overwhelming influence of Government may stifle the independent voices of preschool teachers and other stakeholders.”
“Mdm Speaker, it is important that we regulate our early childhood development centres sensibly and responsibly to ensure good outcomes for our precious children who will carry the light of Singapore forward into the future. While I do not oppose the intent of this Bill, I shall raise questions about specific provisions and its implementation. Firstly, the requirements spelt out in this Bill, for example, on registration of personnel under clause 25 in the context of the shortage of qualified childcare teachers, as well as the greater administrative requirements, may trigger many smaller independent centres to either merge with or be acquired by larger players or else close down altogether. I am concerned about the status of smaller centres that may offer niche services, for example, to children with special needs. Madam, the quality of education and childcare services should come first. The interest of children should come first, ahead of industry considerations. But at the same time, if we foster an industry landscape which is effectively an oligopoly of the AOPs, POPs and MOE kindergartens, that may pose some risks in terms of losing an element of diversity and of competition. Diversity is important, particularly in respect of centres catering to children with special needs, as I mentioned. In fact, in the year 2000, Dr Aline Wong, then Senior Minister of State for Education, said and I quote, "Today, different preschool providers with their different philosophies and approaches to child development offer a wide range of preschool education models in Singapore. There is merit in this arrangement as it promotes healthy competition and provides a fertile arena for innovative practices.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his very detailed reply. Just a few supplementary questions. Were there any affected farmers who did not avail themselves to the help that was given and, if so, is AVA aware of the reasons why, and is AVA looking into that? Secondly, in terms of achieving the target for production of fish locally, is AVA also looking into vertical farming or urban farming? Will that also contribute to the target? And are there some measures in place to have that complement the coastal fish farming and other types of fish farming? Thirdly, is AVA exploring the possibility of deploying insurance products to help in risk-pooling among the farmers? I am not sure if there is a possibility but has that been explored with the insurance sector and with the farms?”
“What measures are in place now or will be considered in the future to limit these possibilities, or limit the damage that might be caused from such possibilities? Conversely, what happens when animals accidentally exit the reserves and are found by residents in these developments who may decide to capture and retain the animals, or even harm them? They should by right call NParks to return animals that are captured, but, if they do not, what recourse does NParks have in such cases? Next, I have a few questions that are more technical in nature. Firstly, the Bill stipulates a reduction in the area size of the Botanic Gardens protected by law. Clause 23 will result in a reduction of 151 sqm of land from the Botanic Gardens. It is a small reduction but I would just like to clarify what is the reason for this reduction. Secondly, I would also like to question the expanded powers given to NParks to appoint Auxiliary Police officers to become park rangers. Clause 3b of the Bill also now I think this is a matter of public interest because if, for example, there has been a rise in offences that warrant this, it is a matter of public interest to understand what these offences are. For example, if there has been a spike in incidents of persons harming or poaching endangered species of animals or plants in our nature reserves, many concerned citizens and NGOs may want to know about this. Separately, but related to the main point, to what extent does NParks envisage that it will induct more staff in this way to police nature reserves in parks? I ask this because I wonder if we have given due considerations in other ways to minimise offences occurring on NParks' land, such as CCTV cameras or apps that allow members of the public to photograph and report offences that they see. 3.”
“I have suggested an online approach to consultation because this would seem to be efficient and scalable, but there could be other approaches to achieve the same result, bearing in mind that many Singaporeans are still not too IT-savvy. What are the benefits of such consultation? There are many. Such exercises could inspire a greater sense of ownership over the local greenery and public park spaces. This, in turn, could enhance positive behaviours like anti-littering and that could have a knock-on effect of saving state expenditure in other areas. Such consultations could even stimulate interaction among residents as they lobby one another for their own preferred treescapes. Lastly, such exercises could stimulate a better understanding and appreciation of the beauty of our natural flora in Singapore, as well as of the work of NParks. I would like to speak on another gap that does not seem to be addressed in this Bill to seek clarifications. In past decades, there have been residential developments constructed at the margins of the Central Catchment in Bukit Timah Nature Reserves. Many of these are large-scale developments like condominiums and strata landed housing. This amendment regulating the release or abandonment of animals into reserves through waterways is a good one, but it does not address one major issue, which is the potential of invasive species entering the reserves, not by design or choice, but by random chance, such as nonindigenous declarative plants favoured by condominium developers reproducing in the reserves, or exotic pets owned by residents, escaping accidentally into the reserves without the conscious choice of the residents to release them. These incidents may disrupt the reserves' delicate eco-system and biodiversity.”
“However, efficient solutions can be found that do not stretch the resources in manpower of NParks to conduct such consultations, and this solution can be deployed only when there is significant new planting or replanting, and not for the replacement of just a single tree. For example, where such decisions need to be made, NParks could direct residents to a webpage that presents different tree options that they could vote on. Residents could submit a very simple online form with their NRIC to express support for one or another option. The residents could learn about the page through noticeboards in HDB estates, or by signboards placed strategically at landed estates. One could argue against this by saying that if only certain people go online and express a preference, then the decision will be undemocratic. However, that is still better than no one being given a chance to express a preference. Moreover, more votes may be generated by individual residents urging their neighbours to go online and vote for their preferred option. It could be argued that this is giving residents too much choice NParks could provide only certain options for tree choice based on local considerations, such as soil considerations and so on, and also based on national considerations, like the need to preserve a certain level of biodiversity in the national tree population which has broader ecological benefits for Singapore. In fact, if such a model of consultation can be piloted and run efficiently, it could serve as an inspiration for local consultation and empowerment on other matters that fall into the middle zone, where they are neither too big to warrant a formal vote, nor too small to ignore residents' feedback altogether.”
“I can only assume that no such structured and regular process exist. Madam, in my grassroots work, residents have told me several times that they would like to have been consulted on what types of trees are replanted in place of removed trees or what types of fresh trees are planted. For example, one family living in a landed estate where trees line the path from the market to the house − and this is a group of people who clearly have a strong interest in flora, and in plants and trees, and have a great deal of knowledge about that subject − they shared with me that the group of trees that they had loved and which had afforded them good shade on hot days, had been replaced by a tree species which was less shady. I note that this wish to have some say over the types of trees planted in a particular area is also felt by some residents in the HDB estate where I live. I would like to suggest a new model for making decisions about trees being planted in residential estates. Where a significant number of trees are to be removed and trees replanted, or where a new group or growth of trees that have to be planted, be it installation of tree samplings or planting of instant trees, NParks and HDB, where HDB manages the green areas, could initiate a consultation process with residents. Some might argue that this is a trivial matter over which to have a consultation process. Some might argue that a matter such as this does not warrant such consultation and that it might overburden NParks to build this into NParks' regular procedures.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. The Parks and Trees (Amendment) Bill seeks to update the Parks and Trees Act to expand the powers of NParks to appoint park rangers, to increase penalties for nature-related offences and to extend certain protections to marine parks, among other things. I have no objections to the Bill, but I would like to speak about gaps in our current regime for managing trees and parks, as well as to raise some technical questions about certain provisions in the Bill. In November last year, I asked the Minister for National Development what are the criteria that NParks uses to make decisions about tree-cutting, and/or replanting activities in residential estates, whether these criteria vary according to the location and nature of the residential estate and, if so, how? And how are residents consulted in the process? The reply was that tree removal is a last resort. If it is deemed necessary by NParks' arborists or contractors, NParks will then study replanting options and make a decision about what replacement trees to plant, based on technical considerations like available space, presumably soil condition, sunlight exposure at that location and so on. The reply also said, "Residents are consulted when there is an opportunity to rejuvenate the overall landscaping of the estate. For example, NParks seeks feedback on landscaping options and tree-planting schemes as part of the estate upgrading programme and for large projects, such as Jurong Lake Gardens". The reply did not state if there was a process for consulting residents about decisions on replacing groups of trees near residential estates, or planting new clusters, in other words, for tree planting decisions that are not related to big projects.”
“I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the very detailed and very helpful answer. I think these various programmes are very important because of the need to cultivate an entrepreneurial sense and inclination so that we can develop local SMEs as a strong third leg to the economy. So, my supplementary questions are centred on how can you increase the number of students who are affected by these programmes and in whom we can instil that kind of entrepreneurial inclination. My main supplementary question is really about the model that we adopt. It seems that for this particular programme, the Yes! grant and also the other programme which is the 50 SMEs Initiative, which I have asked about in a separate written question, the model seems to be one of a "pull" model where the schools and the students can elect to participate and make use of the fund and resources. But would the Ministry consider more of a "push" model, so that all schools and all students will, at minimum, be required to engage in at least some activity that exposes them to the entrepreneurial world? It need not be a very high-level activity like an attachment where you should opt in, but it could be a very basic exposure like a tour of some local companies, talks or taking part in some basic activities.”
“Just one supplementary question for the Minister of State. The Minister of State alluded to the cost factor. Has the Government actually done a study on quantifying what will be the cost impact if this benefit was extended to LTVP spouses of Singaporeans, beyond just the LTVP-Plus? Is there a ballpark figure in mind?”
“Mdm Speaker, a quick supplementary question, please.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I would like to ask: what are the reasons the review concluded that allowing motorists to use old coupons at pro-rated rates was not a more efficient solution? I would also like to ask a second supplementary question: in future, whether there can be the option of allowing the old supply of coupons to be used up in the market and simply replaced? This means, old coupons will not be issued anymore and new coupons being issued, rather than requiring motorists to actually go into petrol stations and convenience stores and so on, to do an exchange, because that creates hassle for the motorists and also creates an administrative burden.”