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 6 of 25.
“Thank you, Sir. I would like to post a clarification to the hon Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa, on the speech that he made, I wanted to do it earlier, but I was not fast enough in raising my hand. My clarification is really in relation to the 50% ceiling on the net investment returns (NIR) that goes into the Budget. So, as the hon Member would know, this framework was created in, I believe, 2008 when the Government decided that as society changes, it is time to reset the balance between how much of those investment returns get rolled back into the reserves and how much actually goes into the Budget. Given all the trends we have talked about, the ageing society, the fact that Government expenditures are going to go up and so on, I would like to ask Mr Liang on this. Does he not agree that this balance point should be reviewed from time to time as the needs for Government spending changes, or does he think that this 50% ceiling should be set in stone forever? And if he agrees that it should be reviewed from time to time, when does he think should it be reviewed again?”
“It is not through outward displays of national symbols devoid of real feelings, heart and passion. It is also not through associating and cultivating hate towards other countries. To me, we inspire our citizens and ourselves to respect these precious national symbols by showing the world that these symbols represent hope. I hope we, as a people, will always be free to choose the life that we desire. Our pledge calls on us to build a democratic society. It is a work in progress and we must continue working on it and defending what has been built. And it needs all of us to build it together. While we may disagree and debate robustly over what the ideals of our pledge concretely mean in day-to-day policies, we should strive to nurture this hope in our hearts and the hearts of fellow Singaporeans.”
“(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Madam, I support the National Symbols Bill in making meaningful and necessary changes. When we say something is symbolic, sometimes, it means that it is less valuable or less important, compared to everyday bread-and-butter issues. However, symbols matter. The symbols of our nationhood should be viewed by all Singaporeans as precious. Why? Because they symbolise our hard-fought Independence and our national sovereignty. And why is our national sovereignty important? It is important because it is equivalent to our national freedom – our freedom to choose our own destiny as a people, through the institutions of our democratic society, the democratic society that we all pledged to build. Madam, our pledge calls on all of us to be one people, regardless of race, language or religion. Today, I want to talk about how we should be one people, regardless of political views or affiliation. I can confidently say that from many conversations with Singaporeans, that displaying the flag is not associated with any political leanings. My Workers' Party colleagues and I are incredibly proud to give out flags on National Day, just like other Members of this House from all parties. And I have met many Singaporeans who are true patriots, who belong to different political parties. It is my hope that all of us who have faith in this democratic society would serve as advocates and role models as citizens who believe that our national symbols should be respected by everyone, regardless of their political leanings. This can be achieved by inspiring our citizens about what Singapore is and what it can be, not through law enforcement, even though this, inevitably, has a role. So, how can we inspire our people?”
“Hope that this place, this land, this people will always strive to get better and better and better in achieving the high ideals of our pledge, one of the symbols being protected by this Bill, even if those ideals never become perfectly embodied in our national life. Like how, in mathematics, the line of an asymptote infinitely approaches the axis, but never quite touches it. Hope that we, as a people, will always be free to choose our destiny. Many Singaporeans would argue, and I include myself here, that aspects of our democratic system are in need of reform. But that is why we stay and fight to make things better. Our pledge does not say we already are a democratic society. Our pledge calls on us to build a democratic society. It is a work in progress, this building and defending of what has been built. It is a work that will never end. And it needs all of us to be builders. So, while we may disagree and debate robustly over what the ideals of our pledge concretely mean in day-to-day policies and practice, while we may disagree about many things unconnected to the ideals of the pledge, we should strive to nurture this hope in our own hearts and the hearts of our fellow Singaporeans, all of us – as teachers, colleagues, members of political parties, co-religionists, social media practitioners, opinion leaders, artists, scholars and as parents, as children, as members of families. This striving should infuse our writing, our social media posts, our scholarship, our words and deeds. For at the end of the day, while our nation will never be perfect, these symbols represent our hope that the Singaporean people, in this land, will always strive to honour the angels of our better nature. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in our national language, please.”
“So, we should not fall into the trap of saying, for example, that certain HDB blocks are more patriotic because they display more flags and others less so because they display fewer. That may not be the case and there could be various reasons why some blocks have more flags than others. Madam, we should not inspire love of our symbols and our country by counterpoising our nation against another and cultivating resentment towards other countries. For it is said – that patriotism is the love of one's people, nationalism is the hatred of others. I hope that ours can be a patriotism that does not seek to validate itself through juxtaposition against some "other" nation. Hatred is a form of energy that can bind a nation, but to the wrong end. Rather, we should show the world that Singaporeans want to better ourselves and the world without putting anyone else down. So, how do we inspire our fellow Singaporeans to respect and love our national symbols? I would like to conclude my speech with a humble attempt to answer this question, in the spirit of encouraging every citizen to find their own answer to it. I think we inspire our citizens and ourselves to respect these precious national symbols by showing the world, through our deeds and words, that these symbols represent, not a perfect country in its finished form, not a creed set in stone, as many ideas that govern public life will evolve over time. Rather, these symbols represent something far more precious. And that something is hope. The hope that lives in our hearts. What sort of hope is that?”
“Government policies, political ideas, political practices, institutional design – all of these things are subject to the immutable law of change. All these things will evolve with time and will be decided democratically now and, one hopes, by future generations of Singaporeans. The ideas that future generations debate, the technologies and economic arrangements, the big public questions, all of these will evolve and change, probably in ways that we cannot completely foresee now. But it must be our collective hope that the symbols of our nation endure, along with our nation's sovereignty. And we should seek this respect for our national symbols, not primarily through heavy-handed legal means, though that has its place. At this point, I would like to express the hope that the authorities take a light touch in enforcing the provisions of this law, show compassion and take cognisance of the individual circumstances associated with each offence, for example, where ignorance, mental illness or momentary emotions come into play. Rather, we should seek this respect for our national symbols primarily by inspiring citizens with what Singapore is and what it can be, not primarily through law enforcement – though the latter, inevitably, has its place as well; I do not disagree with that. Madam, how do we inspire citizens in this way? How do we ourselves ensure that we remain inspired by this Singapore story and this Singapore cause, so as to be able to inspire others? Not mainly through prioritising outward, ostentatious displays of national symbols devoid of the real feeling, the heart, the passion. Not that way. It is possible to fall into the trap of ritualistic homage to the symbols, while the real passion for what those things symbolise atrophies and dies away.”
“My reply to them has always been, "Please, let us stay and fight to change things in our country". A people who care about politics only in the personal and pecuniary sense, a people who are not invested in the greater good, in what society is and should be, will be a people who are doomed to disappear in the long arc of history. So, we should recognise that people who are suspicious of our national symbols may have the best of motives. They may be passionate idealists and that should not be dismissed. Rather, I would like to argue today that all of us who value our democratic society, including all of us in this House, should work towards galvanising respect for our national symbols among our fellow Singaporeans, of all views and all shades of political opinion. It is possible for reasonable citizens to disagree about the design of our national institutions. For example, some facets of our electoral system or the design of national practices. For example, some citizens may disagree that the public expense incurred for the National Day Parade is fully justified. I would argue that there can be reasonable points of view on all sides of these questions. And that is exactly how we should resolve such questions – reasonably, respectfully, democratically. But when it comes to our national symbols, such as our flag, our pledge, our anthem and so on, it is my hope, and I am sure it is the hope of all Members here, that all of us who believe in this democratic society would serve as advocates and role models for the view that our national symbols should be respected by all citizens, across the political spectrum and across the spectrum of views on other matters as well.”
“I have also encountered the view in some quarters that, if one is a Singaporean who disagrees intensely with some aspects of Government policy or the design of political institutions, one, therefore, will find the symbols and institutions of this nation alien and unrepresentative. The people who harbour such sentiments, I would argue, should not be condemned in a very judgemental way. But it is the task of all of us who care about our country and value our democracy to win over such people, to persuade such people to identify with our national symbols. In fact, many of the people who are disinterested in the symbols of the nation for such reasons do so precisely because they care passionately about certain principles, ideals and values. And that is a good thing. And that is what we need – citizens who care about the greater good and want to play their part in defining it, rather than citizens who do not care about politics or the wider society. We should, Mdm Deputy Speaker, recognise that the greater danger for our country may not lie in people who are passionate about particular political ideals, but rather people who do not care about politics or anything else going on in the wider society, only bothering to form an opinion when something affects them personally and materially. Madam, sometimes, in my house visits, I meet people, and this is more and more rare nowadays, but I meet people who say, "I don't care about politics." I typically give them a jokey reply, "But politics cares about you." Madam, I have met some Singaporeans over the years who disagree with certain aspects of policies and politics in Singapore and have decided that they want to migrate for that reason.”
“That these symbols are about our freedom. For example, it is said that Pak Zubir Said, when he composed the national anthem, thought of it as a kind of prayer to be uttered when Singapore attained Independence. And here, I would like to call for more efforts to be made to educate our people on the meaning of the national anthem. It is sad that many citizens do not know the words or even what the words mean, simply referring to our anthem as "mari-kita." Sir, our pledge calls on all of us to be one people, regardless of race, language or religion. Today, I would like to talk about how we should be one people, regardless of political views and affiliation as well. Some may find this an uncomfortable subject to talk about in the context of a conversation about national symbols. But I think this is an important point to make and expand upon. Sir, in my conversations with Singaporeans as a Member of Parliament and previously as a Workers' Party volunteer and, before that, a civil society activist, I have come across the view that displays of national symbols are associated with support for the ruling party, the "establishment", the "status quo", however you want to define it. It is a view that has some currency, though much less today than it did in the past, from what I can tell. [Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair] In truth, I encounter this view less and less. And I can quite confidently say, from many conversations with Singaporeans, that displaying the flag is not associated with any particular political leaning. My Workers' Party colleagues and I are incredibly proud to give out flags on National Day, as are Members of this House from all parties. And I have met many wonderful Singaporeans, who are true patriots, who belong to multiple political parties.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the National Symbols Bill makes several important changes. It provides formal statutory recognition to our national symbols and seeks to clarify and broaden the use of the national symbols by Singaporeans to express national pride and solidarity. Sir, I support the Bill in making meaningful and necessary changes. I shall focus my speech on the posture which I hope all stakeholders will take towards this law, not only in Government, but also those in political parties, civil society groups and citizens at large. And that posture should be to use this law as a reference point for the work of galvanising awareness and respect for our nationhood amongst all citizens. All of us can and should be ambassadors and role models for this work, in ways both large and small. Sir, this Bill is about national symbols. When people speak of something as symbolic, it sometimes means that it is less valuable and less important. Less important, perhaps, than material things – money, resources, healthcare, the proverbial bread-and-butter issues. The bread-and-butter issues that, in some narratives, Singaporean public life is fixated on. Yet, symbols matter. I will say that again – symbols matter! The symbols of our nationhood should be viewed by all Singaporeans as precious. Why? Because they symbolise our hard-fought Independence and our national sovereignty. And why is our national sovereignty important? It is important because it is equivalent to our national freedom – our freedom to choose our destiny, as a people, through the institutions of our democratic society, the democratic society that our pledge enjoins us to build. Sir, it is my hope that our schools and other institutions educate the public about the meaning of our national symbols with this in mind.”
“As another reference point, in the UK, borrowers who are unable to repay their debts are, generally, eligible for Debt Relief Orders if they meet criteria, such as owing less than £30,000, having less than £75 a month in spare income and having less than a certain threshold of assets. In exchange for accepting certain restrictions for one year, these borrowers will be free from their debt after that one year. In view of these reference points, would the Government consider launching similar debt reduction programmes for low-income families, with the aim of enabling them to escape the poverty trap, perhaps tied to participation in financial literacy programmes. This could be part of the holistic support provided by the social care sector to the poor, which includes many chronically indebted persons.”
“CCS facilitates a debt management programme to help suitable borrowers repay their loans in manageable instalments. However, for such debt management programmes provided by not-for-profits, not every borrower is eligible and credit counsellors are not obliged by statute to define, prescribe, apply or enforce any eligibility criteria. I hope the Government can look into how such credit counselling and debt restructuring services can be made more widely available, as well as for the eligibility criteria for various debt repayment schemes or debt management programmes to be expanded. I also want to suggest that the Government work with not-for-profits and researchers to collect data on the reasons for which individuals experience debt management issues, so that financial literacy programmes, like MoneySENSE, can be focused on addressing precisely those issues and common mistakes. I would also like to call for more attention in financial education programmes to be given on risky retail financial products, such as some kinds of cryptocurrency products, which, anecdotally, have attracted many young retail investors. Secondly, Sir, a 2019 study was reported in The Straits Times, which showed that chronic debt hurts the ability of the poor to make good decisions. A private charity, the Methodist Welfare Services (MWS) developed the MWS Family Development programme, where for every dollar of debt cleared by clients on their own, MWS will match with $2. This programme is targeted at low-income families living on a per capita income of less than $850.”
“For instance, in a CNA article, one debt collection company raised concerns that "the proposed law would put a lot of us out of business because most of these debt collectors are ex-inmates" and also because "both of our directors have a chequered history". Of course, this does not mean that the granting of licences should be oblivious to a person's past record. But there are different types of past offences and it would seem fair that, for certain types of past offences, after a certain period of time, this should not count against the individual entering this debt collection profession. Such an approach is consistent with the spirit of unlocking the second prison, and my Parliamentary colleagues, Mr Louis Chua and Mr Dennis Tan, have also made similar arguments. In terms of determining whether individuals are fit and proper people to be debt collectors, I suggest that companies be allowed to send in testimonials on behalf of their existing employees who might otherwise fail the approval process due to their previous convictions and that adequate resources and a proper process be put in place to hear such appeals. Furthermore, when considering whether an applicant for a licence is a fit and proper person, I would urge the Government to take into account factors, such as the company's record, years of experience and complaints record, in deciding whether or not to grant the licences. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to conclude my speech by sharing some observations and making some points on wider issues regarding debt. Firstly, I note that, currently, credit counselling services in Singapore are largely administered by private not-for-profit bodies, for example, Credit Counselling Singapore (CCS).”
“Fourthly, public education and awareness campaigns should be conducted among members of the public so as to educate them on what constitutes unacceptable debt collection behaviour by debt collectors. Furthermore, in order to deter errant debt collectors, perhaps the Minister could consider a reporting hotline or a platform on a Government-created app, which could be set up to enable members of the public to report errant debt collectors. This would help to shift some of the burden of enforcement against errant debt collectors away from the compliance officers and licensing officers, and to directly empower members of the public to raise issues regarding errant debt collectors, without overburdening the general Police line. Mr Speaker, Sir, my next point is on the need to strike a balance between inclusivity and encouraging robustness in the licensing regime for debt collection. I note that clause 8 of the draft Bill provides that the Licensing Officer can only grant a licence if the Licensing Officer is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence, and clause 20 provides that the Licensing Officer can only grant approval for an individual to be a debt collector if they are satisfied that that individual is a fit and proper person. However, the concern is that this might prevent existing individual debt collectors who are exemplary in their current work performance, but who have had some past involvement with the criminal justice system in respect of non-violent offences or existing debt collection firms who are managed by individuals with such a background, from obtaining licences under the proposed regime.”
“Firstly, that individuals from the debt collection companies should be required to show identification and their licence before they engage in debt collection activities. This would mirror the Bill's proposed requirement for compliance officers to carry "at all times" their identification card when examining the compliance of debt collection activities of regulated businesses. Secondly, in line with clause 13 of the Bill, there should be an online directory available to the public to freely search and verify the licence status of a debt collector. This would be consistent with current Government resources, such as the moneylender's directory, which serves to inform the public as to who the licensed moneylenders are, for example. This would bolster and strengthen the legitimacy of the debt collection industry by improving accountability. Thirdly, as the Bill allows for the existence of multiple codes of practice which may apply to debt collectors, I propose that the various codes of practice, which may be enacted in legislation and subsidiary legislation, be unified, harmonised and given legal effect. This would ensure certainty and help members of public to have a common, clear understanding of the powers which debt collectors are allowed to exercise. Furthermore, this ensures transparency and minimises potential abuse of power. Taking the United States as an example, their Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is a federal law that prescribes one singular, unified and legally binding piece of legislation. This legislation draws a clear distinction between legitimate debt collection and harassment or otherwise unlawful behaviour.”
“Sir, this Bill empowers private actors to act as compliance officers, to take investigatory and enforcement action against debt collectors. Clause 4(1) of the Bill specifically provides that an individual who is appointed as a compliance officer cannot be an employee of a public authority or a public officer. As such, neither the debt collector, nor the compliance officers who oversee them, are public officers with statutory powers, vis-à-vis the public. Privatisation of this regulatory mechanism may hold potential complications for both the debt collectors and members of the public. Given that debt collectors will have frequent touch points with members of the public, it is of importance that the powers, rights and identities of such debt collectors should be easily understood by the public. However, the public will face significant challenges in verifying whether such debt collectors are legitimate. Furthermore, members of the public may not know the multiple codes of practice that may be proposed which pertain to debt collectors. An example of an existing Code of Practice is the Credit Collection Association of Singapore's Code of Conduct and Practice, and there may also be other new codes of practice which are proposed and implemented under subsidiary legislation by the Licensing Officers under this Bill. As such, members of the public may struggle in the following three areas. Firstly, to know whether people who claim to be debt collectors are, indeed, genuinely licensed debt collectors. Secondly, to know when debt collectors have crossed the line when collecting debts. And thirdly, to find avenues of recourse or feedback pertaining to any potential abuses of power by debt collectors. It is for this reason that I propose the following.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I view this Bill as a step in the right direction and do not object to it. My speech will focus on several suggestions to improve our debt collection and management regime. I shall focus my speech on four major points. Firstly, proposals to simplify the regulation of debt collection. Secondly, suggestions to provide transparency and accountability to members of the public. Thirdly, highlighting some risks associated with leaving debt collection activities to be regulated by private actors. Fourthly, ideas to strike a balance between inclusivity and encouraging robustness in the licensing regime regulating debt collection. Apart from these major points, I would like to also briefly touch on a few wider social issues regarding debt. Before I proceed, I declare my interest as the chairman of an international research consultancy that has undertaken work in the field of debt management and related fields. Mr Speaker, Sir, my first point is on the powers which the Bill gives to compliance officers who are private actors. To begin with, I note that the Debt Collection Bill grants powers to public officers, who may issue various different codes of practice. Such public officers may then appoint private actors, known as compliance officers, who would enforce and apply these codes of practice when examining the conduct and licensing status of debt collectors. Such compliance officers are empowered to grant and renew licences to debt collection firms and to conduct investigations on such debt collection companies. This role would require sufficient training and familiarity with possibly multiple codes of conduct on the part of compliance officers.”
“I thank the Minister of State for her explanation. Just a few supplementary questions. Firstly, is there a mechanism whereby our local SMEs can very easily access the IPs, the patents, for example, that are available – from COIs, IHLs, RIs and RCs under A*STAR? Is there perhaps an online mechanism where they can access these patents and see whether they can enter into negotiations to license these patents for their own operations? Notwithstanding that there are occasional meet-ups, gatherings and so on, is there this easy, online matching mechanism, for example? Secondly, is there a mechanism for SMEs to inform IHLs and so on about their commercial priorities, so that they can influence the direction of R&D projects? Thirdly, in the view of the Government, are these mechanisms working well right now to generate commercial impact? Lastly, does the Government regularly benchmark the performance of other IHLs and innovation ecosystems around the world which are noted to be very good at bridging between academic research and commercial impact? I understand the Israelis, for example, are very good at this. They tend to generate very high commercial impact from academic R&D.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just three supplementary questions for the Minister for Health. Firstly, he shared some data on the mRNA vaccines being effective – three shots against seriously falling ill. Could he give us a sense of that data for the non-mRNA vaccines, the traditional vaccines? Are these less efficacious than the mRNA? The second supplementary question is: would MOH consider sending mobile vaccination teams to individual homes to vaccinate them even if they are not seniors, if there are strong mitigating factors? For example, if the individual is diagnosed with a mental health condition that makes it hard for them to leave their home. The third supplementary question is: would the Ministry consider tweaking its systems and processes to encourage people who go for the COVID-19 vaccines to also get the regular flu vaccine at the same time if, indeed, that is scientifically feasible?”
“And they form part of the earth’s magnificent diversity, of which we are stewards and which should not be denied to future generations of human beings – and when I say that, I look up at the Gallery and I see many young students – very heartening to see that. In Asia, the problem is acute, as Asia is home to many endangered species while also being a major global centre of demand for endangered wildlife and wildlife products. While public awareness of the plight of iconic species, such as the African Elephant and the Black Rhino, for example, is relatively high, many other less high-profile species are also prey to illegal wildlife markets. In Southeast Asia, the Asian Elephant population has declined by 50% over the past century. The four species of Asian pangolins are now among most poached animals in the world, by some reports. Sir, this Bill is a step in the right direction. But going forward, Singapore can go further and can do more to demonstrate forward thinking and leadership on this issue by going beyond CITES.”
“Species that are identified by experts and NGOs as being threatened by trade take many years to make it into CITES listings. Without such a listing, unregulated trade in wildlife is the default. Sir, I suggest that Singapore show leadership regionally and globally and move beyond CITES by considering a new approach to regulating the trade in wildlife – reverse listing. The current model of direct listing relies on customs agents to verify shipments. It places the burden of proof of trade sustainability onto the Government and on NGO watchdogs, while businesses profit from the trade. Newly described species, those that have just been discovered and have just become known to science, newly discovered species which are usually unlisted, are left completely vulnerable to trade. Why not, then, use a reverse-listing model which would make "no-trade" the default? Such a system would require the traders themselves to produce proof of sustainable trade. Such a system could also incorporate a default ban on newly discovered species for a certain period of time, so as to allow time for that species to be listed, if the facts so warrant. In conclusion, Sir, given the scale of biodiversity loss, unrestricted trade in wildlife is simply no longer acceptable. What some scientists have dubbed the Anthropocene era – the era in earth’s history when human actions drive change in global climate and biological conditions – must not become the era of another mass extinction. Rare and endangered species have a key role to play in keeping ecosystems in balance. Their bodies may contain keys to biopharmaceutical and other scientific breakthroughs.”
“Next, Sir, in this Bill, penalties for infringements of the Bill have been increased. This will, laudably, increase the deterrence against infringements of the law. Nevertheless, there is room for stiffer penalties. Singapore’s maximum jail term for wildlife trafficking is still, to my understanding, the lowest penalty in ASEAN. In order to position Singapore as a regional leader in the fight against illegal wildlife trade, a harsher jail term of seven years can be considered. Next, one significant gap in the ESA Bill as it stands would appear to be the online wildlife trade. An overwhelming share of the illegal wildlife trade is now carried out online. A 2020 study found that more than a third of all reptile species were traded online. Almost 90% of those species were caught from the wild, with many being rare and endangered. There are recent reports of exotic wildlife being sold as pets on social media in Singapore. These examples demonstrate the extent to which the Internet is used as a tool in conducting such deplorable trades. I propose that advertising endangered wildlife or wildlife products on these online platforms should also be treated as an offence if those transactions would be illegal under the law. We should require online platforms to self-police the transactions they facilitate in this regard. Sir, the CITES regulations operate under a blacklisting model. The trade of species which are listed in the various appendices are regulated. At present, almost 6,000 animal and 33,000 plant species are protected against over-exploitation. Nevertheless, this still represents a small fraction of animals and plants on earth. Larger, more charismatic animals are disproportionately represented in these appendices.”
“It is often difficult to identify if the resultant product is “naturally excreted" or not. As a result of these exceptions, the amended law does not afford these animals the protection they need. Before I move on from this example, let me note that I am using the example of Kopi Luwak as an illustration. The Asian palm civet is not currently an endangered species and the issue I alluded to is related to cruelty towards animals. Nevertheless, the example illustrates a problem that may arise with endangered animal-derived products. Next, let me talk about hybrids. I will take the example of leopard cats and I believe Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How also referred to this example. Let me expand. Sir, leopard cats are the last remaining wild cats in Singapore and there are fewer than 50 individuals left. They are classified under CITES Appendix II, which requires their trade to be controlled. Their hybrids, with domestic cats, are known as Bengal cats. The Bill, as it stands, would allow a fifth-generation Bengal cat to be freely traded in Singapore, without requiring any documentation on when, where or how the original leopard cat was purveyed. My understanding of the comments made by Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How earlier is that, currently, traders do voluntarily submit such documentation but it is my understanding that the Bill does not require such documentation to be submitted. So, that is a loophole that can perhaps be plugged. Such exceptions can allow local demand to drive poaching and captive breeding in other parts of the world. We should consider tweaks to the regulations that would require the spirit of CITES to be applied to hybrids in a reasonable manner, so as to deter such activities.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to note that the Bill before the House today has addressed several issues and loopholes inherent to the 2006 Act. The amendments acknowledge updates to CITES protocols and definitions and, concurrently, update the law. Definitions pertaining to import/export, the items being traded, as well as the documentation required to validate this trade, have been clarified. In addition, the Bill grants improved powers of enforcement to the National Parks Board or NParks, the agency responsible for implementing CITES regulations. It closes loopholes by explicitly not recognising retrospective CITES trade permits, granted, with certain exceptions. These are positive changes. Singapore’s import/export laws must adapt to ensure that the wildlife trade is regulated sustainably and that the illegal wildlife trade, which is driven by organised crime, be dealt a body blow. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, although CITES offers an accredited framework to build our legislation on, it is not all-encapsulating. Sir, I hope to see the Endangered Species Act move beyond CITES. I offer the following suggestions for future changes that could be made via legislation or perhaps subsidiary legislation. In line with CITES regulations, exceptions to the import/export rules have been made for naturally excreted urine, faeces and ambergris. Nevertheless, in a regional context, they represent exploitable loopholes that can allow unsustainable practices to persist. For example, Kopi Luwak, or civet coffee, is typically sold as coffee beans excreted by civets from many Southeast Asian nations. In truth, this industry sometimes relies on inhumane wild-capture and forced feeding of civets, although I am not claiming that every Kopi Luwak producer engages in inhumane practices.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the illegal trade in wildlife and endangered species is a major driver of biodiversity loss and species extinction throughout the world. The depletion of biodiversity at commercial scales is contributing to the deterioration of biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, posing a long-term threat to the well-being of humanity, as noted in the 2019 report of the Inter-governmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. There is broad international consensus about the widespread harm caused by the illegal wildlife trade. Governments must do what they can to deter such crimes. Developed nations like Singapore have an even greater responsibility in this regard. We owe it to the world to crack down hard on these criminal enterprises. Rightfully, Singapore has been a party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) since 1986. Sir, as an important trade hub and global middleman, Singapore, along with other cities, is one node in a vast network of illegal wildlife trade. This region is also an entryway into China, reportedly the world’s largest consumer market for illegal wildlife products. Our highly developed trade infrastructure and global connectivity are prone to exploitation to facilitate illicit activities. The ESA Bill was read for the first time on 9 May this year and was initiated to amend the 2006 Act. I support this Bill as a step in the right direction, but in my speech I shall raise a number of suggestions on how the regulatory regime applicable to the wildlife trade can be further strengthened with a view to stamping out the trade in endangered species.”
“I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answers and just a procedural clarification. If I heard correctly, the Minister said he would answer all questions until Question No 13. I am just wondering if he has answered Question No 13 as well, which is about the impact of restraints placed on non-urgent treatments and testing during COVID-19 and what backlog has there been for such treatments and testing, and what has that impact been.”
“It will not be a rare situation, going forward, that couples decide that the husband should be giving up his job to take on care work because he earns less or for some other reason. Second, at the very least, we should not bind the Courts in granting maintenance. And my third point here also concludes my speech. If we agree today that, in principle, we want to expand recognition, legal support and improve autonomy in care work, then, in the name of fairness, we must ensure that this is also so when things go poorly, that we provide a route for compensation for all care work, be it the contributions of men and non-citizen women.”
“Its position on section 69 was that there was no need for such gender-neutral legislation because there is a higher chance of women giving up their careers to get involved in care work while the partner continues working. I would like to revisit this point because it ties back to our argument that while progress is being made to empower the majority of women in Singapore, there are whole groups of people being left behind and these include non-citizen women living in Singapore, certain types of them, but also men who are doing exactly the same type of unpaid care work which many Members of Parliament spoke about today. The example was cited in this House of a 2014 media report on a man who was ordered to pay $70,000 in maintenance despite the fact that he was a retiree, the ex-wife earned more than him and he paid the mortgage for their home. In developed countries, approaches to spousal maintenance vary, with some countries like England giving generous maintenance to the financially weaker party and others focusing on time-limited maintenance, so that the spouse can get back into the workforce. I recognise that the specifics will continue to be debated more fully at some point in time, but one common idea I support is that, regardless of sex, a spouse must be able to file for maintenance without the requirement for incapacitation. Why do I say this? One, it should not be the case that we decide this law on what tends to happen, but rather, what can happen, especially as the current cohort of young adults has reached a point where a higher proportion of women than men have post-Secondary educational qualifications.”
“First, creating predictability and a perception of fairness and transparency, better enabling participants in our national life to make decisions. Second, attracting and encouraging the right applicants, for example, those with skills in short supply. Third, creating a dynamic system that can be adjusted, for example, based on labour market needs, with those adjustments being publicly signalled and, hence, influencing citizenship application behaviour in a positive way. Fourth, within such a system, foreign spouses of Singaporean children can be given clear, transparent, time-based pathways to PR status and citizenship via a points system, without having to depend on a "black box" evaluation process which breeds uncertainty and an inability to plan ahead. Sir, the arguments used against a transparent points-based system for immigration could also be used against instituting such a system for Employment Passes. But with the advent of COMPASS, we have taken a major step in that direction for the Employment Pass regime. There is no reason why we should not do the same for our immigration regime. Lastly, Sir, the fourth and last topic I would like to touch on, and in the spirit of gender equality, I would like to call for changes to our spousal maintenance laws to foster more fairness to certain types of men who may be at a disadvantage under section 69 of the Women’s Charter in the event of a divorce. In the Women’s Charter debate earlier this year, the Government said it has considered the possibility of allowing maintenance applications to be made for husbands without the condition of incapacity.”
“Sir, on the argument that we do not want people to game the system, if we have a points-based system that prioritises those with a clearly better claim to be citizens, will that not attract and encourage the right applicants exhibiting the right qualifications and behaviours that we want? For example, we can institute more points for skillsets in short supply in our economy. To revisit a subject I have previously spoken about at some length in this House, to get more Singaporeans into good redesigned trade jobs like carpentry and plumbing, for example, one approach – not the only approach by any means – is to convert experienced foreign craftsmen and trades experts into citizens. As for the argument that foreigners should not be able to stir up anti-Singapore sentiments if there is no systemic national bias in granting citizenship, as one assumes there is not, this should not be an issue with a transparent points-based system. Opacity, on the other hand, can just as easily fuel such sentiments. Some may say that more transparency may encourage foreigners to marry Singaporeans in an exploitative and cynical fashion solely to gain an assured pathway to citizenship. But not having transparency does not appear to have deterred Singaporeans from marrying foreigners and having children in very significant numbers. All the current regime does is create uncertainty for the foreign spouse and the mother of Singaporean children and, hence, for the family and the children themselves. Sir, I would argue that non-transparency does not curb the phenomenon of Singaporeans marrying foreign spouses. It only makes things worse for everyone after the fact. The advantages of a points-based immigration system include the following.”
“This is why, in its General Election 2020 manifesto, the Workers' Party called for a clear, transparent and time-based fast-track path to citizenship for foreign spouses who are parents of Singaporean children. I repeat this call here. I would like to extend this into a more general point and call for a more transparent regime in evaluating applications for citizenship. In a previous reply to a Parliamentary Question, the Government outlined its rationale for not instituting a more transparent system for evaluating citizenship applications. Two reasons were given: not wanting people to "game the system" and not wanting foreign nationals to accuse the Government publicly of unfairness. It is true that most countries do not grant immigration rights automatically to foreign spouses of citizens. However, many other countries publish transparent material for such decisions. The criteria for a UK spouse visa, for instance, states that the applicant and spouse must have a combined income of at least £18,600 a year, among other requirements. The subsequent application for permanent residency includes a "Life in the UK" test to demonstrate good knowledge of the country's language and lifestyle. In Germany, the criteria include specific language proficiency levels in the passing of the citizenship test. New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the UK are examples of countries with transparent criteria and a points-based immigration system. The criteria, typically, cover age, level of education, appropriate skills and work experience, a job offer and proficiency in the local language. In New Zealand, having close family members is also one of the criteria that is taken into account.”
“Moreover, LTVP is not a stable status and does not amount to residency, subject, as it is, to regular renewal after short-time intervals. The time taken for foreign spouses to become citizens and the uncertainty surrounding this have implications for, firstly, stress and mental well-being, as uncertainty clouds their ability to plan their lives. This may also affect the well-being of their Singaporean children. Second, access to housing options open to citizens and PRs. Though rental housing can be granted to non-citizens, the perception – and usually, the reality – is that it is harder for such cases. Third, access to legal employment, which may lead them to take up cash-based forms of employment that do not have a legal basis, which will leave them vulnerable to exploitation with no legal recourse. Not all foreign spouses have LTVP+ or MOM's approval to work. Would it not be beneficial to tap on this pool of manpower for our economy since these individuals are living in Singapore anyway? Fourth, access to certain forms of social welfare assistance reserved for citizens and PRs, as with housing. Fifth, access to subsidies for primary healthcare, which may inhibit behaviours, such as seeking medical treatment and going for health screening, and which may have an impact on the health of the wider community if LTVP holders succumb to communicable diseases, for example. Sixth, enhanced vulnerability to domestic violence since the perception remains that it is harder to get a renewal of LTVP without spousal sponsorship. AWARE has cited evidence of cases where the husband threatens to cancel the LTVP if the wife reports domestic violence.”
“Olivia will have to start working even though she faces uncertainty as to her immigration status and ability to work in future as renewals of permits are never assured even though she is the mother of the Singaporean child; and Anna, who is part of a family unit with the mother and whose mother faces all of this uncertainty while having to raise her single-handedly. Sir, one in four marriages involving at least one Singapore Citizen is between a Singapore Citizen and non-resident foreigner, meaning that the spouse is not a PR or Singapore Citizen. Seventy percent of such spouses are women. So, this issue has a gender dimension. To quote from the July 2021 AWARE report once again, "the latest publicly available data shows that from 2012 to 2016, 13,900 migrant spouses of Singapore Citizens were granted LTVP out of 16,600 applications. A national study on cross-national families found that 55% of the 655 foreign-born mothers interviewed had attained permanent residency and 26% had become Singapore Citizens after an average of eight years of marriage, but 17% of them still held LTVP or LTVP+. This suggests that many such couples have to deal with the stresses and difficulties arising from uncertain residency status for almost a decade before the migrant spouse acquires PR or citizenship. For female migrant spouses, in particular, this means years of insecurity, compounding their vulnerability to family violence." According to an earlier Parliamentary Question reply in this House, 98% of LTVP renewals sponsored by non-spouses are approved but this still leaves uncertainty on the part of the spouse who loses a Singapore Citizen spouse or whose Singaporean spouse no longer wants to sponsor her LTVP application.”
“Sir, I will not need to remind Members of the House about the problem of foreign spouses who are mothers of Singaporean children and who sometimes grapple with the insecurity caused by their uncertain immigration status in Singapore, having to renew Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) or social visit passes at regular intervals with no assurance of success and with uncertain prospects of achieving PR or citizenship status in the longer term in spite of their role as parents and families with Singaporean kids. All of us, I am quite sure I can say this, have dealt with such cases among our constituents. I dealt with one such case recently in the Serangoon ward of Aljunied GRC and I would like to share it. Olivia – not her real name, of course – is a foreign national on LTVP. She was married to a Singaporean husband. They are parents to a Singaporean girl, Anna – also not her real name. Anna is in Primary 4 at one of our schools. She struck me as being just like my own daughter at that age. Unfortunately, the father passed away. At his wake, I met both Olivia and Anna. I took down their details so as to write appeals in aspect of Olivia's continued LTVP status since she does not have a living husband as a sponsor any longer; and in respect of their continued stay in an HDB public rental flat since the family is of very low income – and, in fact, now has no income at all – since Olivia does not work, though she would now want to and need to. Sir, I feel very emotional thinking about both of them.”
“Under this law, both men and women can commit acts of sexual harassment. Sir, sexual harassment is a complex issue and it can cause a great deal of discomfort to men who are confused as to how social mores have changed and where to draw the line, a point that my colleague for Sengkang, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, will allude to. I do not suggest a rush to legislate right now but would make three suggestions here as steps to consider taking before considering the issue of legislation. Firstly, the Government should consider how best to nudge employers to adopt in their respective corporate handbooks guidelines on workplace sexual harassment based on existing TAFEP guidelines or international best practices. For example, can this not be a requirement or a plus point when awarding certain large Government contracts and economic incentives? Secondly, can the Government conduct and publish more research on the subject of workplace and campus sexual harassment so as to quantify the impact of better guidelines and other factors on the problem? Thirdly, can the MOE be more prescriptive in requiring Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to adhere to certain baseline minimal standards of compliance with respect to sexual harassment? These will include implementing a national code of conduct for IHLs as well as ensuring comprehensive sexuality education that includes the concepts of respecting consent. In Taiwan, for example, as cited in the AWARE report I mentioned, the government has enacted the Gender Equity Education Act, which, specifically, addresses the problem of gender-based bullying, which is referred to as sexual bullying, under the Act. Sir, I would like now to move on to the third topic in my speech, which is the immigration status of foreign spouses.”
“To cite an AWARE report on gender equality released on 28 July last year, "According to the results of a 2020 Ipsos-AWARE national survey, two in five workers in Singapore have experienced workplace sexual harassment in the past five years, including being on the receiving end of crude sexual and sexist remarks and being touched physically in ways that made them feel distress or alarm." So, this is not an insignificant problem. Victims of sexual harassment can go to Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) but the role of TAFEP, currently, would appear to be limited to interceding with the victim's employer to put in place better anti-sexual harassment policies and to deploy its own disciplinary and internal dispute handling procedures as a company. Victims can also pursue recourse through the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) Court, filing a Magistrate's Complaint or through litigation, which is costly and time-consuming, which would deter many victims, especially since victims may often be disadvantaged in terms of power or socioeconomic status vis-a-vis male perpetrators. Moreover, in the absence of any legislation defining sexual harassment of the employer's liability for the same, the outcome of such legal action is uncertain. Other countries have used legislative tools to tackle this issue. This can be found in the UK Equality Act and in the US. Malaysia amended its Employment Act to specifically define and criminalise acts of sexual harassment in 2014. Malaysian law defines sexual harassment as "any unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, whether verbal, nonverbal, visual, gestural or physical, directed at a person, which is offensive, humiliating or a threat to their wellbeing".”
“Sir, in the last speech I made on this, I put forward some suggestions on how to change mindsets. I would like to put forward another suggestion here. The Government can support non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and think tanks in conducting rigorous regular research and publishing the results about the areas in life where women still face inequality – from the unequal burden of housework and domestic violence to sexist discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace and on campus. All of us in this House can and should help publicise such data, as should other stakeholders like NGOs, trade associations and chambers and student groups. Such data being widely accepted can help individual Singaporeans have informed conversations with other Singaporeans to move the needle on mindsets. In truth, the battle for mindsets was never mainly about policies. It is about us as a people keeping an open mind to new facts, research and trends, being willing to relook at established conventions and winning people over, one person at a time. We all have a role to play in this journey. If every person who believes in gender equality can change the mind of just one person who harbours sexist thinking, whether man or woman, a revolution in our culture and thinking will be achievable within this generation. Next, Sir, my second topic. I would like to talk about the issue of sexual harassment. Here, I am not referring to violent or physical abuse, such as rape or molest, which is addressable under the laws that exist, but to verbal abuse and inappropriate behaviour, lewd and derogatory comments or instructions given in the workplace or on campuses, for example.”
“Firstly, Sir, on changing mindsets and culture. In my Motion speech last year, I spoke about the challenges facing us on this front. Online, we do still see views from some quarters stating that moves towards gender equality and fairness for women reflect "misandry" or the hatred of men. Mr Speaker, Sir, just last month, the South Korean presidential election was won by a candidate who had, among other things, campaigned on a platform that some described as "anti-feminist". He had reportedly called for the abolition of Korea's Ministry of Gender Equality and Family and had blamed the country's low birth rate on "feminism". This is a sobering turn of events, though it should be noted that the victory was by the narrowest of margins, with some Korean gender equality activists suggesting that the result showed that the momentum was on their side. Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to be absolutely clear. I cite this example not to argue that we should not go too far or too fast so as not to provoke a backlash from those with different views. On the contrary, my Workers' Party colleagues and I argue that we should be bold and ambitious in our gender equality strides. A great deal is at stake, including the empowerment to lead full lives and contribute back to society of half the population. I bring up the Korean example to emphasise the importance of having conversations with Singaporean men and, perhaps, some women who may not fully buy into the vision of gender equality as well, to convince them that society moving in this direction is fair, right and not a threat to them. We have to carry all Singaporeans on this journey. We must not allow anti-gender equality sentiments to fester and brew into something more bitter and more sinister.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, like Member of Parliament for Sengkang Ms He Ting Ru and my Workers' Party colleagues in the House, I support the Motion. We all share the goal of a gender-equal society. For us in the Workers' Party, this is a very important goal, which is why Ms He Ting Ru and I moved the Motion in this House on gender equality last year. Personally, what keeps me invested in this ideal is when I think about my family members – my wife, my mother, my daughter and also my son – and how I want them to live in a society where every individual is judged not by their gender but solely by the content of their character – to paraphrase something that Dr Martin Luther King Junior said in the context of race. While we broadly agree on the end goal, we have some differences in our approaches to define and, ultimately, achieve that goal, which is why, in our speeches in this debate, we are focusing on where we see gaps in the White Paper and where we have different views and policies. Sir, in my speech today, I shall focus on four topics related to the goal of moving towards a truly gender-equal society. Firstly, changing mindsets to strive against sexism and towards gender equality in everyday behaviours and shared cultures. Secondly, policy responses to the problem of sexual harassment. Thirdly, transparent time-based structural rules to enable foreign spouses with Singaporean children, who are mostly women, to move towards Permanent Residency (PR) status and citizenship – and extending that point, a more predictable and transparent points-based immigration regime. And fourthly, in the spirit of gender equality, changes to our laws on spousal maintenance to be fairer to house-husbands and men who have less income and assets than their wives in the event of a divorce.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. Just to respond to the Minister's point, the intent of my question was to understand if there was a blanket prohibition for ex-offenders entering to these facilities as, say, delivery drivers or to be employed in these facilities. By looking at this question, my view would be that a nuanced approach and a calibrated approach should be taken whereby the gravity of the offence and the length of time that the ex-offender has been offence-free be taken into consideration, rather than a blanket prohibition be imposed. I think the Minister did confirm that that is the case – that a nuanced approach is taken. And I appreciate the other efforts across the whole landscape that YRSG has been undertaking to help ex-offenders to re-integrate and find alternative employment. My particular question was just in relation to those two facilities that are, of course, high-risk, we do recognise that, and with a view to ascertain that there is no blanket prohibition. I think the Minister did confirm that is the case. So, that is my response.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. Two supplementary questions. Regarding the figure given of 8% who have transitioned to permanent employment, would the Senior Minister of State have any data of the demographic profile of those who moved out of platform work into permanent employment of some sort or other? Are they the older ones or are they the younger ones? Secondly, given the developments in technology and also the fact that this kind of work that the platform workers do may be harder for older people to do physically, there is a long-term employability concern that the Senior Minister of State alluded to. Would the Government consider, going forward, engaging more proactive communications to these platform workers, make them aware of these challenges and to stimulate them to think more about their long-term career prospects in other industries? There is drone delivery, for example, that is displacing some of these jobs already in some cities.”
“Food vouchers for the lower income to spend at hawker centres.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for her responses. Just a few supplementary questions. The hawkers who operate in privately-run hawker centres usually cannot get the benefit of rental waivers and other levers of control the Government has. Would the Government look more on the problems they face from rising food costs and see how that can be addressed? Secondly, would the Government consider the suggestion I made in my Adjournment Motion as one form of benefit to lower-income families – to create a food voucher so that they can use at hawker centres as a way of delivering targeted assistance that also benefits the hawkers and does not require them to keep food prices down? Lastly, given the spike in food prices because of geopolitical events and so on, and these will take some time to stabilise, will the Government consider a freezing of upward revisions to the rentals, at least for a certain period of time until the situation stabilises?”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman, Sir. Just three clarifications for Minister Masagos Zulkifli. I will try and keep it short. Firstly, would the Ministry consider the proposal contained in my Budget speech to set a poverty line and measure the number of families, particularly, the number of children, who fall below this line every year so that we can measure how we are making an impact on the issue of poverty and transitioning people out of poverty? I note that some other countries do publish this data. Secondly, on the quantum of financial assistance, how often is this reviewed? When will the next review be and do these reviews take into consideration new research, such as the study by Prof Teo You Yenn and Dr Ng Kok Hoe that I referred to? Lastly, a narrow clarification. The Minister referred to our intergenerational social mobility being better than North America and Europe, if I heard him correctly. Could the Minister reference what is the study that demonstrates that? Because I am not aware of that.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. Just one supplementary question. Given that that is the long-term planning parameter – 80% to 85% occupancy – is there a prescribed plan or series of steps from MOH to the hospitals as to what are the contingency plans when this 85% ceiling is breached? For example, setting up augmented facilities within the same building or transferring patients to the private sector, or any other types of steps when that happens.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, a recent study estimated that 10% of resident households were food insecure in 2019. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this, with many low-income families struggling from the financial fallout. Food distribution drives do important work but may be fragmented and lead to food wastage if rations are unsuitable due to health preference or dietary reasons. I propose that the Government coordinate food aid by expanding the Community Shop concept of public rental flats and pockets of low-income family areas island-wide. The Community Shop was launched by Food from the Heart and lets beneficiaries choose some groceries every month for free from special minimarts in their area. This caters to different needs of beneficiary households, such as those who cook and do not cook, those with children or elderly who may require certain foods. Participants appreciate the flexibility and freedom of choice. Ninety-eight percent of respondents selected it as their preferred type of food programme after the first year. I also propose an electronic point-of-sale system with digital currency loaded in a card. A large proportion of the credits could be earmarked for healthier food products to encourage healthy eating. The card could also be used at participating hawker stalls for those who do not cook. This repeats two calls in my recent Adjournment Motions on preventive health and hawkers. NGO Food Bank Singapore has piloted a similar Tap-A-Meal initiative, where beneficiaries are given cards loaded with credit to order what they wish from Encik Tan's menu. Reach Out to Families in Need”
“In 2019, the overall annual resignation rate of social workers was 17%, which is double that of the estimated 8% attrition rate of healthcare workers in 2021. In a recent SUSS study, 57% of social workers were found to be suffering from anxiety during the pandemic in 2020. Social workers are professionals battling a national crisis on the frontlines and should be adequately compensated. A revolving door of social workers is detrimental to the support offered to vulnerable families. I would like to ask the Government to review social workers' compensation and progression pathways in a very outcomes-oriented way, with a view to raise retention. Above all, efforts should be made to expand recruitment so as to lower caseloads, as I spoke about in my Budget speech. And lastly, Sir, one possible objection to all I have thus far said is this: one could say that providing more welfare support to the poor more smoothly will breed welfare dependency. By doing this, we will trap the poor in a cycle of welfare dependency and will doom them and their children to poverty. We used to hear this argument a lot. We still do and it is heard around the world. Such arguments are not without a grain of truth. Hence, I want to be absolutely clear. I am not calling for unlimited welfare aid that is so much that it discourages work. What I am calling for is enough aid for the basic dignity of the poor relative to minimum wage benchmarks and inflation and based on the latest research; enough aid to break the poverty cycle for the children; and with aid delivered in such a way that it drives better outcomes. Above all – I am just wrapping up – we must set ambitious goals to massively reduce poverty and the poverty cycle. A nation which does not set ambitious goals in any policy arena —”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, in my Budget speech, I argued for a war on poverty and a different approach based on defining a poverty line, channelling all schemes through FSC social workers, reducing the stress involved in applying for financial assistance, providing longer lead times and larger amounts of financial assistance based on new research and with part of it tied to conditions. I also called for more aggressive early intervention for children born into poor families. The overarching goal should be to achieve a massive measurable dent in poverty and the poverty cycle. Sir, ComLink, which is to be scaled up across Singapore, reflects some of these elements but not all. I am specifically calling for FSCs to be able to approve and administer all the various state financial assistance schemes directly for those defined as poor and at risk. I argue for FSCs to be like venture capitalists, making financial investments, coaching and hand-holding to get a return on that investment. Social workers today do not actually administer the aid in all cases. My arguments on the financial aid application process and amounts are also separate issues from what ComLink per se is focused on. To do all this, social workers need visibility on the holistic situation of the family. Vulnerable families often face complex issues, such as chronic illnesses, mental health issues, school absenteeism and other social issues. Hence, more needs to be done to ensure that social workers get that visibility via tools like One Client View and other forms of cross-agency data sharing, with permissions. Sir, let me speak now on the social work profession. Social workers should see an increase in their remuneration, given the increased scope of work.”
“There are levers to guard against this by keeping the grant small and directing it only at lower-income or multi-problem families. Raising Quality of Preschools”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, students from low-income families tend to be more vulnerable to long-term absenteeism in schools. For families where persistent absenteeism is an issue, I would like to propose a conditional cash transfer programme – not a transfer to the Child Development Account – for these students in Primary and Secondary schools conditional on their commitment to student early intervention programmes and regular school attendance. Such programmes, like the widely praised Bolsa Famílias, have have been found to improve school attendance and even cognitive development internationally. This is not a novel concept in Singapore. Since 2001, The Straits Times School Pocket Money Fund has been providing a monthly allowance for students from low-income backgrounds conditional on school attendance. An independent study of its impact found positive feedback from parents and students. Its recipients maintain regular attendance, perform better in school, were more engaged and more confident in achieving educational goals. Whilst specific aid programmes, such as the MOE Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS), are useful in fulfilling specific educational needs, they typically have strict conditions on the usage of the aid. Conditional cash transfers are nudges that, nevertheless, enable families to retain the freedom to choose how best to fulfil their needs, be it for better nutrition or savings for University education. The Straits Times School Pocket Money Fund study found that some recipients were keen to save the money. I was most heartened to read that as it could help them build healthy financial habits to cope with future difficulties. Some may object that such a policy creates moral hazard and some families may get their children to be absent to get the grant.”