Low Thia Khiang
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, my question is for the Minister for Health. The official communication channel to the people who subscribe to the WhatsApp group quoted the Prime Minister saying that "Experts think that the Wuhan virus may be less deadlier than SARS". So, can we have some verification whether this is true so far?”
“In Mandarin, Sir. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] So, Member Mr Gan Thiam Poh meant to say that although the Minister has the decision-making power under this Bill, you can still go to Court to challenge the decision.”
“Mr Speaker, clarification in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have stated clearly that the Government already has a lot of power under existing legislation. They can even shut down websites.”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] First and foremost, you must follow the Minister's decision to take down the message, you cannot go to Court. According to this Bill, you must comply with the Minister's order. Otherwise, you will be charged.”
“In Mandarin, Sir. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our Secretary-General is in the Committee. He told us about the contents of the Committee's discussion, so we know what was discussed in the Committee.”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] You assume that the Minister will not do this, but is your assumption correct? It may be correct now, but will it be correct in the future? Even the Minister cannot guarantee that, he said he cannot be sure that future governments will not abuse their power. Can you be sure?”
The complete record
Every one of 2,669 lines we hold for Low Thia Khiang, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 54.
“This is because permanent residents do not need to apply for work permit, and are not restricted by the Government's limit on foreign workers. The number of applications approved for permanent residents has decreased from 79,000 in 2008 to 29,000 in 2010. Looking at the current situation, I think the Government should limit the number of approvals for permanent resident applications to 30,000 a year. Mr Speaker, this Budget also commits to significantly increase the budget of the Ministry of Health, from the current budget of $4 billion a year, to $8 billion a year in the next five years. As the population ages, the medical care required by the elderly and other related expenses have become a heavy financial burden for ordinary Singaporean families, the move by Government to significantly increase spending to relieve the burden of the people is in the right direction. Page: 1441 The Government has also relaxed the requirements for applying for subsidies. Previously, patients with monthly per capita household income of $2200 do not get any subsidies when they stay in community hospitals; now, they can get a 45% subsidy on hospitalisation. This is an expansion of the pool of Singaporeans who can benefit from subsidies, from the previous benchmark of per capita household income of $1,500 to lower middle-income Singaporeans. During the 2004 Budget debate, I spoke on the Government's move to implement means testing in providing public service and social assistance. I said, "If the target of our healthcare assistance scheme are households with monthly per capita income of $1,000 or less, then does it mean that households with monthly per capita income of $1,001 do not need similar assistance?”
“However, the Government should note that, as policies that attempt to compel SMEs to transform and raise productivity by limiting foreign workers kick in, foreign workers will become crucial to the survival of companies. Those who are able to comply with the Government's requirements and continue to employ foreign workers will gain the upper hand. Those who cannot fulfil Government's requirements and, hence, are unable to employ foreign workers and, at the same time, are unable to change their way of doing business and do not benefit from the Government's assistance package, will eventually decline or even close shop. Hence, in terms of foreign worker policies and controls, the Government must be fair to all companies, regardless of whether they are medium-sized or small-sized companies. If one of the objectives of limiting the number of foreign workers is to prevent foreigners from taking away Singaporeans' rice bowls, then besides foreign workers, the Government should also take note of how issuing Employment Passes affects the employment market and raise the overall productivity of companies. For example, in 2011, the Government issued 176,000 Employment Passes, this is 63,000 more than the 113,000 Employment Passes issued in 2010. If the trend of rapidly increasing Employment Passes continues, how does that affect Government's objective of reducing reliance on foreign labour? In addition, the Government should also learn its lesson, and not be too lax in approving permanent resident applications, as the practice of being overly relaxed in granting permanent resident status to foreigners in the past few years has also added pressure to Singaporeans in finding jobs.”
“Among measures designed to help SMEs, such as increasing absentee payroll for staff training, productivity and innovation incentive schemes and M&A schemes, I wonder how many SMEs, who are already in a vulnerable position, can truly benefit from these schemes and transform successfully; get through the torment process of this economic restructuring. Page: 1440 Most SMEs are run by Singaporeans; some small businesses can only get by with enough profits to cover living expenses. I am worried that many small businessmen will eventually become unemployed, and I am also worried that the restructuring will become a process of "the big fish eating up the small fish", and the Government becomes an accomplice of "the big eating the small". I urge the Government to be cautious in the economic restructuring process. I agree we should not be over-reliant on foreign workers; we should not allow foreign workers to take away Singaporeans' rice bowls. This is not protectionism, but a responsibility of the Government to the people. However, we also know that we have limited population, and we need foreign workers to fill up the gap in our domestic labour market. It is not easy to strike a balance between the two. The Government is applying a two-pronged approach by manipulating the Dependency Ratio Ceiling (DRC) and the foreign worker levy. I think, based on current experience, these two mechanisms are blunt policy tools which do not differentiate between the different needs of various industries and do not set out customised DRC and foreign worker levy. I will discuss the issue further during MOM's COS debate.”
“(In Mandarin) [Please refer to Pg 1548-1550 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Speaker, in my opinion, this year's Budget is special. In my memory, all previous Budgets had focused on the economy. This Budget has focused, instead, on helping the elderly, the vulnerable and raising the income of low-wage earners. In terms of the economy, in order to increase low-wage earners' income, we must reduce our dependence on foreign workers, restructure our economy and improve productivity so companies can pay more to their workers. These measures may even slow down our economic growth. This is the first Budget after the 2011 elections, and it signals the future direction of the Government in terms of governance and policies. From focusing on the economy to social policy, from emphasising economic growth to raising the wages of low-income Singaporeans, it is a major shift in the Government€˜s thinking and mindset, and a formal display of the Government's determination to change in the aftermath of the 2011 elections. In my opinion, this is a genuine people's Budget. Next, let me talk about the content of the Budget. The focus of this year's Budget is to improve productivity through economic restructure, and raise the income of low-income Singaporeans through higher productivity. We all hope we can raise workers' income, the faster the better, because the cost of living has been increasing. However, it will be a long and arduous journey to restructure the economy and increase productivity. Currently, the Government's strategy is to increase productivity by controlling the supply of foreign labour and encourage SMEs to change their business and operation model.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the members of the Workers' Party, I extend to you our congratulations on your election as Speaker of Parliament. I would also like to thank the Leader of the House for welcoming the elected Opposition MPs and NCMPs. Sir, with six elected Members and two NCMPs, the Workers' Party is now represented in Parliament by a total of eight Members. Singaporeans have not been represented by such a relatively large number of Opposition Members in Parliament since 1966. This is the mandate our people expressed through the watershed election in May. Singaporeans want Members of the Opposition to speak on their behalf without fear or favour. Our people are pragmatic but, at the same time, they also understand the importance of democracy and good governance to their lives today, and the hopes and dreams of their children tomorrow. In this regard, they expect the Government to be responsive and accountable. They expect a responsible Parliament in which policies and issues that affect them are seriously debated and rigorously scrutinised. They want clear and transparent explanations from the Ministers at all times. In this respect, I trust that Mr Speaker, Sir, you will allow sufficient opportunity for Members of the Opposition to express our views and voice the concerns and needs of the people. Page: 11 I would like to thank all Singaporeans who have supported the Workers' Party. In particular, I would like to pay tribute to voters in the Aljunied GRC and express my deep gratitude to Hougang voters for their unwavering support. Together, Sir, let us move towards a First World Parliament. [Applause.] 4.08 pm”
“The law should also cover the use of personal data collected by various agencies and commerical institutions. Supermarket lucky draws”
“We are exposed not because we have less cloth on our clothes due to the hot weather, but because of the rapid changes in technology. If you drive, whenever you drive past an ERP gantry, your vehicle's IU number will be registered. When you stop at certain traffic junctions, there may be cameras capturing video footage. When you enter a carpark, the parking system again knows what time your car enters and leaves the building. The LTA is also reportedly looking at implementing a future ERP system using GPS technology. If you travel by public transport, the contactless card system keeps tabs on the stations and bus stops where you start and end your journey. When you make purchases using the same card, again the system keeps track of where and how much you spend. When you go to certain sensitive areas or neighbourhoods for lunch, your image may be captured by CCTV [Laughter]. At lunch, when your friend pulls out a smartphone to take photo of you and post on Facebook and Twitter, you can possibly find your own image shared to millions of Singaporean online. When you sleep at work, the next thing you see could be a video of you snoring on YouTube. This is how much technology has infiltrated our lives. However, Singapore's online privacy laws are almost non-existent. Recently, a young man in the United States, named Clement, jumped to his death after unwittingly becoming a star of a video that was streamed online. Do we want to wait until a similar tragedy happens in Singapore before we start to consider online privacy laws? I am of the view that it is time that the Government introduced a privacy law in Singapore to protect the identity and privacy of individual Singaporeans.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, telcos here have been offering internet services to consumers based on access speed. With the advent of OpenNet, telcos now offer high speed Internet access with different maximum bandwidth. These plans provide breakdowns of download speeds, upload speeds and even differentiate between local and international traffic. However, the thing that bugs most consumers is that advertised "up-to" speed is just a theoretical speed that is rarely achievable. Many users experience fluctuation in speed. As a consumer, my question has always been, "Am I paying for the speed claimed in the plan?" I am disappointed to read in a recent news report that the three major telcos here have objected to IDA's proposals to get them to disclose average internet access speed in addition to the theoretical maximum access speed. They cite the complexity of the many factors to take into consideration when attempting to measure average speed, including consumer broadband set-up, application download and even the device used to access Internet. However, Sir, if it is so difficult to measure average speed, how is it possible to claim a maximum speed and, based on that, the amount charged to the consumer on this maximum speed? This is shortchanging the consumer. IDA was reported to have said that the responses have been generally positive and will review its position after the feedback. I would like to know what is the IDA's position on ensuring the ISPs do not shortchange Singaporeans who use their service, or will the Government lean towards protecting the interests of telcos, since the Government is the majority shareholder, anyway? Protection of online privacy Sir, the modern lifestyle in Singapore has made Singaporeans more and more exposed.”
“Madam, the Minister earlier said that the employment target of older workers is set at 65%. I would like the Minister to clarify why it is set at 65%, why not higher, and whether the target being set is realisable.”
“Would MOM consider establishing a unit under its Ministry to look into issues related to the employment of older workers and, more importantly, to review and deal with age discrimination against older workers by employers?”
“The Government has progressively delayed CPF drawdown age from 62 to 65. Older workers will need to stay employed for as long as possible until they can access their CPF funds. Therefore, it is important for our senior workers to have ample employment opportunities when they age so that they can enjoy a happy and dignified working life in their silver years. Unfortunately, age discrimination could be a stumbling block for older job seekers. In a Straits Times report last year, age discrimination complaints received by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices have risen. The article also noted that most complaints to the Committee cited discrimination at the pre-employment stage. In this respect, I agree with what MP Ang Mong Seng has said. I received the same complaints as well. Sir, I believe the number of such complaints is relatively small since the Committee is not well known to workers. Older job seekers who are discriminated against because of their age may not know where to go to lodge their complaints. Hence, the number of complaints received by the Committee could be just the tip of the iceberg. The Government's measure of encouraging the employment of older low-wage workers is through the Special Employment Credit. Although employers will receive a special credit of 50% to 80% of the employers' CPF contribution for workers age 55 and above, Sir, the scheme is only temporary as it is called "special and one-off". Sir, I would like to ask, first, whether the Government will make the Employment Credit scheme for older low-wage worker permanent? Secondly, what is the Government's overall strategy in ensuring older workers be just as competitive as their younger counterparts?”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, Singapore's economy has grown by an average of 5% a year over the last 10 years. But productivity growth from 1999 to 2009 has only averaged 1% a year. The bulk of the contribution to the low productivity rate is probably linked to the Government's policy of allowing too many cheap, low-skilled foreign workers into the workforce to generate economic growth. Singapore lags behind Hong Kong in terms of both labour productivity growth and real wage growth over the same period. I understand that MOM-MTI Joint Taskforce on Productivity was set up in February 2009 to examine the problem of declining productivity in the service sector. Last Tuesday, Deputy Prime Minister Teo gave a rosy update on the progress of the National Productivity and Continuing Education Council and its efforts to spur productivity growth. He highlighted a few companies that had done well in their productivity drive. One of the companies mentioned was Tan Seng Kee Foods Pte Ltd, a small home-grown company that started as a sole proprietorship but now employs about 30 employees. Deputy Prime Minister Teo also mentioned that about half of the first $1 billion put into the National Productivity Fund has been opened up to fund productivity initiatives last year. I would like the Minister to provide an update on the number and percentage of small SMEs, like Tan Seng Kee Foods Pte Ltd, that have benefited from the National Productivity Fund last year, the percentage share of the Fund used by the majority local-owned and majority foreign-owned SMEs, and the number of foreign workers hired by the SMEs before and after initiating their productivity drives using the National Productivity Fund. 2.30 pm Labour market”
“[For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Sir, in 2003, LTA stipulated that a new taxi company must have 100 taxis in the first year of being issued a licence, and it must increase its fleet to 400 within four years. LTA's purpose is to ensure economy of scale and a good service standard. This measure was designed to lower the unit cost of new taxi companies as well as their long-term average cost by increasing output. This would be a win-win situation for both the commuters and the taxi companies. Taxi companies will be able to manage their business effectively and improve their service standard and reputation. The liberalisation of the taxi market will also enable commuters to get 'high end' service with a reasonable price. Hence, I was puzzled when I read a recent report that LTA intends to drastically raise the requirements for a taxi operating licence. Taxi operators will need to have 400 taxis in the first year of being issued a licence, and increase to 1,000 within four years. This will have a great impact on smaller taxi firms that might go out of business, resulting in a monopoly in the end. Will this reduce the choice of taxi drivers and the checks and balances in the taxi market? For commuters, will this lead to fare increase and extra transport cost? I would like to ask the Minister for Transport the following three questions: *Cols. 4311-4312. (i) Why would LTA raise the requirements for a taxi operating licence? (ii) Will this policy have a negative impact on commuters? and (iii) Does LTA have any measures to make sure that the market will remain open and have sufficient checks and balances after the implementation of this new policy? Taxi services”
“The old principle of "no ceiling yet maintaining the bottomline" is no longer viable because there is no more bottomline to maintain. Chinese language”
“[For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Mr Chairman, the Ministry of Education has conducted two rounds of Mother Tongue Reviews in six years. The last report was published in January this year. The key of this Mother Tongue Review was to enable students to apply what they have learnt in classroom in daily lives. Proficiency descriptors are used as benchmarks for Mother Tongue education. The descriptors emphasise the use of communication as a tool to improve the ability to interact between students and others. *Cols. 4057-4058. The Director-General of Education, Ms Ho Peng, admitted that two rounds of review in six years was not a small challenge for teachers. People are most concerned with the following: Do current mother tongue teachers have enough training in their teaching of interactive communication and oral dialogues? Are there enough teaching materials? How does MOE achieve the target of making Chinese a live language in a holistic manner? My feeling is that some Chinese curriculum tries to pass on traditional values and cultural heritage while making it within the grasp of the students' ability. The text is usually dry and boring. Teachers have no choice but to teach them. How can they arouse the interest of these students? Although Chinese is a known as a Mother Tongue, judging from the Government's policy and attitude, it is just another practical language in the daily lives as it is believed that as long as a language is useful and necessary, students will be motivated to study it just like young people studying Japanese to read manga and then Korean to watch Korean shows these days. Our Chinese standard is sinking continuously. It has gone so low that we do not know how much further it will go down.”
“Does the Ministry have holistic approach to convince parents that as long as students do their part to put in serious effort in school, the education system is sufficient to bring out the best in the students?”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, Singapore prides itself in having one of the best education systems in the world. MOE's website states that: "We have a strong education system. Singapore students aim high and they achieve very good results". This is recognised around the world. Beneath this system, students and parents are struggling hard to keep up. A 2008 Sunday Times Special, entitled "Tuition Nation", reported that 97 out of 100 students surveyed, took tuition. A parent was quoted as saying that tuition was necessary or he would be left behind his classmates because they all had tutors too. Another Sunday Times survey in 2010 described a parent paying $850 a month to ensure that her child could make it into the Gifted Education Programme. Sir, the question is, are our students achieving very good results because of the strong education system or because of the excessive tuition culture? A good, strong education system should give parents the full confidence that the process will produce the desired outcomes for their children. The current situation in Singapore where tuition is needed to sustain the high level of achievement is puzzling. Can the Minister offer some explanation to the phenomenon here? Most tuition centres are focused on results-oriented pursuits, helping the students to achieve better results in examinations. Is the Ministry tracking the tuition trend here to see how the tuition culture could have affected MOE's objective of providing a broad-based and holistic education to the students? It is a long overdue task to allay the parents' worries that if their children do not have tutors, they will be left behind their peers.”
“Madam, the Minister earlier said his brother dropped everything in Canada to return home to take care of his aged mother. But I am sure he would agree that not everyone can do that. Many need to work to feed their family and they are unable to leave their jobs just to take care of a terminally-ill family member. In that respect, I would like to ask the Minister what is his perspective of end-of-life care, for people who are terminally ill. What support services is MOH providing to help people who need the services? My understanding is, currently, hospice is pretty expensive and home care support is limited.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, the primary care partnership scheme by MOH has helped needy elderly and disabled Singaporeans receive subsidised treatment at general practitioners (GPs) and dental clinics near their homes. The scheme is convenient, saves travel time and expenses, and eases the pressure on polyclinics to expand their services and facilities to cope with the increase patient load. I understand that there is good support for this scheme from the GPs located in the heartlands or neighbourhoods. Could the Minister provide the statistics for the current patients' participation rate and share with the House on the experience gained by MOH on the administering of the scheme? Could the Minister also provide information on whether the annual subsidies of up to $240-$360 for the treatment of chronic conditions are enough? The current criteria for patients to be qualified for this scheme for subsidised treatment are quite stringent: the qualifying age is 65 and above and the per capita monthly household income of the applicant must be $800 or below. If not, the patient has to be a disabled or earn the same income level on the Public Assistance scheme. Could the Ministry of Health consider reviewing the criteria to enable more needy patients to benefit from this scheme? For example, the qualifying age could be revised to lower than 65 years old, the qualifying per capita monthly household income of $800 could be revised upwards, and the requirement for the patients to be unable to do any of the six activities of daily living could be reviewed. MOH could also consider a tiered system of subsidies where polyclinic patients can choose to be included in this scheme but will be given lower subsidies, if they were to go to the polyclinic.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, the Economic Intelligent Unit's Report – the quality of death commissioned by the Lien Foundation ranks an end-of-life care services across the world. Apart from palliative care, end-of-life care in the report also includes broader social, legal and spiritual elements of care relevant to quality of death. Singapore was ranked 18 *Cols. 3829-3830. out of the 40 countries in the quality of death index. Countries that ranked higher than us include the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan. Singapore's economic transformation from third world to first world was borne out of the hard work put in by past generation of Singaporeans. Now that these aged Singaporeans are pushing the end of their lives on earth, it is a shame that the quality of end-of-life care given to them is not of first-world standard. Even countries such as Belgium and Ireland are able to achieve better scores than Singapore in the four areas covered by the quality of death report. These are basic end-of-life healthcare environment, availability of end-of-life care, costs and quality of end-of-life care. Why is Singapore falling behind so many countries in these areas? Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for Health on MOH's initiatives towards end-of-life services. I noted the Minister seems to encourage Singaporeans to die at home to avoid consuming scarce hospital resources. The Government has shown itself capable of giving up $1.5 billion in Growth Dividends to all citizens including the richest amongst us. Could it not consider re-allocating such public money towards support and subsidies for end-of-life care in the areas of palliative care, hospice and home care for the elderly and the poor amongst us? Polyclinics”
“Sir, in an attempt to deal with the dengue fever problem, it was reported that Malaysia tried to do a follow-up trial on the British scientists' study to try to release genetically modified mosquitoes into the environment. I would like to know from the Minister of State whether we are concerned with Malaysia releasing transgenic mosquitoes into the environment, given that Malaysia is so close to us.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that the incidents of dengue has grown dramatically around the world in recent decades. WHO estimates that it may be 15 million dengue cases worldwide every year. In Singapore, there were 5,103 cases reported last year. Although this is an increase of 13.5% from 2009, the NEA has stated that it has dengue infection under control. Over the years, dengue has become part and parcel of our environmental health risk. As of today, there are still pockets of active clusters of dengue fever in Singapore. A lot of manpower is needed to deal with an outbreak of dengue fever. Such an outbreak can cause anxiety amongst the population as witnessed in the past. Although NEA has the problem under control, it should not rest on its laurels because no one knows when and where the next cycle of outbreak would happen. Recently, it was reported that Thai scientists have successfully developed the world's first dengue fever vaccine. It was also reported that British scientists have created genetically sterile mosquitoes that use sex to get rid of their own species. The British had even carried out a small trial in the Cayman Islands, in the Caribbean, with promising results. In Singapore, the Environmental Health Institute (EHI) is the national authority on mosquitoes. It conducts vector surveillance and control operations to prevent the transmission of vector-borne diseases to humans. I would like to find out if EHI is doing any research to counter the spread of dengue fever in Singapore. Is it working on any ground-breaking method to contain this infectious disease and what is the progress made so far? Will the Government bring in the dengue fever vaccine from Thailand, if it is proven to be safe and effective?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for Finance for a comprehensive reply. On the issue of GST, he says revenue collected from GST will provide the necessary resources to help the lower-income families, and this is a trade-off. It seems to me that this Government looks at GST as a panacea to everything, as income to help the lower income. Sir, my concern is whether this mindset is a risk, that is, using GST as a way of being able to get the resources to help the lower income, to fund many other projects, even social projects. Will Singapore one day end up to be like Japan – high costs, high tax, very expensive and then low-income growth?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister asked in his speech who to help, so I am clarifying who we want to help. [Laughter.] I am not making a speech. Sir, we are a nation-based party, we help the whole spectrum of society and with the focus on workers. Workers, of course, refer to people who are employees. So, whilst we are focused on looking at the lower-income family, we are also looking at the middle-income family as well. Sir, the next issue which the Minister for Finance has mentioned – and to which I agree with him – is that what is important is whether we can keep raising income for Singaporeans. That is what he said. I wish to clarify with him. He put up a chart to show that from 2000 to 2009, there was a 1.7% increase per year. And the target is to raise income by 30% over the coming decade. I would like to ask him how confident is the Government to raise incomes by 30% over the next decade given the situation in the last decade where we only managed half of it. Would the whole picture change if, let us say, in the charts that were shown to us, we removed 2010's incomes? Would it show a different picture in terms of income growth of Singaporeans in the past 10 years?”
“"Ai pia, ji ai yia" is very good. Sir, the Finance Minister has covered himself well, almost in every aspect. He said that whilst the total tax package is progressive, not all taxes are progressive. Yes, I think he knows very well that the GST is regressive, that is why we needed the Offset Package. My question is – and perhaps I would like the Minsiter to clarify – why did he, first of all, tax a low-income family and then give them the Offset Package? I will not tax them and also give them some help. Does he not agree that the fundamental of tax principles must be whether you really need to tax? Do you really need the revenue from a GST that is 2% higher than I proposed? We now have two Integrated Resorts, new streams of income coming in – betting tax and probably from the increase in tourism visits. Next, I would like Minister to clarify why is it that the chart shows that the lower income pays about 16% of the total GST tax? But if you look at the different percentiles of people who pay the GST, will it be – because the tax is wide-based – that the middle-class, middle- and upper-middle groups are actually paying much more in totality? In view of the higher inflation that we are expecting in the coming year, will it be a serious middle-income squeeze? And they will be adversely affected. Well, I think some Members want to know who we wish to help. The Workers' Party helps and aims to help –”
“[For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Perhaps Mr Ong did not hear my speech clearly. In my speech, I did say what the Government has done right, for example, returning the $4 billion taken out in 2009 to the reserves. Is it that he did not hear me clearly or is he deliberately trying to find fault with me, picking bones from an egg? *Cols. 3003-3004”
“Just one point of clarification, in Mandarin, Sir.”
“He is saying that because I am an Opposition Member, I am opposing for the sake of opposing. I have to clarify that point.”
“[For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] I would like to ask the Member for Nee Soon Central, my senior, two points of clarification. He said my speech is like an election speech, but his speech is more like a rally speech in an election. In his speech, he said that as I am an Opposition MP, therefore, I will naturally oppose the Government's Budget. I do not know what he means. I would like to clarify with him. He supports the Budget. Is it because he is a PAP MP, hence, he must support the Budget? If it is not, then what he says is "additional talk". *Cols. 3003-3004.”
“Increasing our fertility rate has to remain a top priority despite the fact that most of the efforts initiated by the Government have failed so far. Taking the easy way out to boost our population by importing foreigners is counter-productive. Sir, as this may be one of the last sittings of Parliament before it is dissolved, I wish all Singaporeans well. I also wish to see a first-world parliament in the making when we reconvene in this House after the coming General Election. 1.06 pm”
“The Prime Minister has announced in 2009 and 2010 that the Government will make the distinction between Singaporeans and Permanent Residents sharper. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) does not believe that this distinction is necessary when it comes to reporting employment data. MOM has never made a distinction between Singapore citizens and Permanent Residents in its labour force report. Is the distinction important? The answer is "yes". It tells Singaporeans that more jobs did go to them. It tells Singaporeans that distinction between PRs and them goes beyond a mere difference in fees charged for education and healthcare. It tells Singaporeans that jobs are indeed created and reserved for them. I am sure this House did not forget that Singaporeans did not even enjoy any significant fee advantage in education and healthcare when compared to PRs as recently as five years ago. So, let us make the distinction clearer. Let Singaporeans know more jobs did go to them in 2010 and more are reserved for them in the next decade. This is the true spirit of Singaporeans first. In conclusion, Sir, the Budget this year has done one thing right. It has prudently put back into Past Reserves the $4 billion that the Government took in 2009. The Finance Minister has said no less than five times in the Budget Statement that the Government can do and will do more to help our society. Therefore, I urge the Government to do more to reduce the rising cost of living and the burden of supporting a family in Singapore. We also need to start working on reversing our low fertility rate urgently. This Budget has fallen short in encouraging couples to procreate.”
“I really hope to see us succeeding in growing the income of low-wage workers through the road of productivity growth. The Workers’ Party recognises the contributions of foreigners to the economic vibrancy of our nation and the need for foreign expertise in certain fields. However, the reason for admitting foreigners into our country should be to enhance the quality of life of Singaporeans. There must be sufficient opportunities for Singaporeans to earn a decent living and to advance careers in our own country. Employers must give priority to hiring Singaporeans. Foreign workers should primarily be employed in positions Singaporeans are unable to fill. Until such thing happens, increasing the incomes of all Singaporeans by 30% is going to be a tough thing to do. I have questioned the effectiveness of the foreign worker levy in controlling the number of foreign workers in Singapore. The latest increase in levy might dampen the demand for such workers in the short term but once the increase is priced into the foreign workers’ salaries, the situation is likely to return to status quo. The strong recovery has brought the unemployment rate down to the levels seen in early 2008, before the crisis, but no one can tell if Singaporeans have benefited much from the 14.5% GDP growth last year. Are there more Singaporeans employed now than in the pre-crisis days? Will Singaporeans get the lion’s share of the 21,300 new skilled jobs mentioned by the Finance Minister when the investment projects are fully realised? What about the 35,000 Integrated Resort (IRs) jobs that the Prime Minister mentioned in this House in 2005? How many of these jobs went to Singaporeans now that the two IRs are fully operational?”
“Although subsidised infant care is an option, most parents would prefer a domestic helper to look after their babies under the supervision of their aged parents at home. Furthermore, in our ageing society, domestic helpers can be trained to provide some basic care for our elderly and disabled. These helpers will complement our long-term care objectives and ease the demand for nursing homes. I am not aware of Singaporeans who want to work as stay-in domestic helpers. Yet, such help is important to many working-class families. The FDW levy should be removed permanently. A saving of $170 to $265 a month will ease the financial burden of families with children and aged parents significantly. It will also somewhat mitigate the rising cost of employing a domestic helper since foreign governments supplying such labour are now demanding a higher salary for their citizens. The removal of this levy may even nudge couples to think about having more babies since getting a domestic helper has become more affordable. The key thrust of this year’s Budget is to strengthen our economy and society for the future. It promises to grow incomes of all Singaporeans by 30% in real terms over this decade. Out of curiosity, I looked up the salaries in the Budget to estimate how much a 30% increase would work out for all Singaporeans. One group of employees did enjoy a 30% rise in salary last year. The estimated salary for Political Appointments for FY2010 was $58.3 million. This salary was revised to $75.7 million or about 30% more. This increase took only a year to materialise. Unfortunately, the incomes of Singaporeans do not grow 30% just like that. It is a lot harder for the salaries of Singaporeans to grow because foreign workers are always willing to work for less.”
“When GST was increased in 2003 and 2004, its percentage share of the total tax revenue went up to 14.9% in 2005. In this year's Budget, GST is projected to contribute 19.5% of the total tax revenue. As you can see, the GST’s share of the tax revenue has gone up 30% since 2005. If the Government is shifting from direct to indirect taxation, we should see the share of direct tax, specifically personal income tax, come down over the years. In 2007, personal income tax constituted 15.5% of the total tax revenue. In the 2011 Budget estimates, this share is expected to go up to 16.1%. How can the Government justify the increase in GST when there is hardly any shift from direct to indirect taxation as a source of revenue? Therefore, the Workers' Party calls upon the Government to reduce the GST rate by two percentage points from the current 7%. Although this will shave $2.4 billion from the estimated receipt for FY 2011, if we discount the one-off election year's Growth Dividend of $1.55 billion, the shortfall in receipt is $0.85 billion. The shortfall in revenue can be balanced by trimming the budgets of some bloated Ministries. The shortfall may also be compensated by an increase in consumption stimulated by a lower GST rate and the expected increase in tourist receipts from the two fully operational IRs. The Workers' Party has also called for a waiver of GST on basic necessities for a long time. I hope the Government will consider the proposal seriously. Next, the foreign domestic worker (FDW) levy, like the radio and television licence fee, is fast losing its relevance too. Hiring a domestic helper is no longer a luxury like in the past because of our changing lifestyle. Families with two working parents will need a helper to take care of their young children.”
“Food prices, healthcare and education costs have gone up by 2.8% to 3.8%. With oil prices hovering around the US$100 mark, Singaporeans can expect to pay more for many essential items and services this year. Therefore, I am of the view that the 2011 Budget should do more to tackle inflation from every possible angle as it is going to be a concern for everyone. There is a need for a concerted effort to address the rising cost of living at the fundamental level, which is to control the price increase of essential items like food, transportation, education and healthcare. Using rebates and subsidies to fight inflation can only ease the hardship in the interim. Permanent programmes like the Public Assistance (PA) scheme take a long time to catch up with inflation. The PA amount took two years to finally reach $400 a month in this Budget. At this point, I must state that it is a blessing to Singapore that many charitable organisations like the Lions Club and Food from the Heart are willing to help needy residents beyond what the Government is doing. However, inflation bites all sectors of the society. Middle-income families are hard-hit too. Many of them suffer in silence under a mountain of levies and price hikes. Thus, without tackling the rising cost of living at the fundamental level, the election year's Growth Dividends would evaporate fast. The GST is at the centre of everything we consume. I urge the Government to seriously consider reducing the GST to help all sectors of the society cope with a projected slower growth and high inflation expected. The Minister for Finance told this House in 2007 that the Government was shifting towards indirect taxation as a source of revenue when it raised GST from 5% to 7% then.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget 2011 is seen by many Singaporeans as a pre-election sweetener designed to win back the hearts and minds of people disempowered by 46 years of PAP rule. The Growth Policy adopted by the Government in recent years has left a hardworking nation disillusioned with its own identity, values and quality of life. The global recovery has helped Singapore greatly. The Finance Minister has called 2010 an exceptional year. We ended the year with an exceptionally high GDP growth. The exceptional year also saw the number of locally born residents dipping to just 57.3% of the population. This has caused some of our young men to lament that they no longer know what they are defending any more. The year also ended with aspiring home seekers grappling with a 14.1% rise in HDB prices and older Singaporeans worrying about retirement and rising medical costs. Looking ahead, the new decade did not start off well either. Singaporean students attending our universities in 2011 will have to contend with a 4%-6% rise in tuition fees, all in the name of making the distinction between Singaporeans and permanent residents (PRs) sharper. While the economic outlook for Singapore is positive this year, almost every basic necessity is expected to cost more moving forward. From food to utilities, rental to childcare, lower- and middle-income Singaporeans will bear the brunt of the rising cost of living. Most Singaporeans are already resigned to paying more for public transport despite the unexpected move by the Public Transport Council to defer the 2011 Fare Review Exercise to the end of the year, after the election is over. The immediate threat that can derail the momentum of our economic growth is inflation. Singapore's inflation has just hit a two-year high in January.”
“Sir, the Member referred to my speech on recommended minimum wage. She said that it would be difficult to set each sector's recommended minimum wage because of the diversity of the companies within the sector. I thought that was actually the same problem that was faced by the Government through the strategy of CET and to improve the productivity of companies in order to uplift the low-wage worker. But will she not agree that there is a need to have some benchmark or to set a benchmark to monitor the progress of the twin strategy of the Government in uplifting the low-wage worker?”
“It is written in our Pledge that we should "achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation". Perhaps "Happiness, Prosperity, Progress" or in short, HPP Index should be created to measure how meaningful our growth is as a nation in the next decade. 2.57 pm”
“More importantly, it will spur the employees to upgrade their skills over time in order to reach a desired wage target. Employees will also know which employers are grossly underpaying their staff or have not upgraded their work processes. Recommended minimum wage will also push employers to raise productivity in the long run. Employers who consistently underpay their workers will find it hard to hire good hands. Meaningful growth. Mr Speaker, Sir, as for the sharing of the fruits of prosperity, I would expect the Government to give big handouts and goodies in the coming Budget, just in time for the General Elections. However, what is more important and pressing now is for us to formulate policies that promote meaningful growth and social cohesion. Everyone must feel a sense of progress with the nation, not a sense that they will occasionally get scraps which fall from the table. It is not meaningful to boast about economic growth year after year if income level of low-wage workers and middle-class families are not uplifted in the process. There is also not much meaning for a nation to achieve high economic growth when a growing section of the population is finding it more difficult to own a home or a small family car with each passing year. Let us measure the well-being of our country with a new indicator that comprises more than just Gross Domestic Product, Gross National Product and Consumer Price Index numbers. The statistics and data captured will affect the formulation of policies to run the country. Besides being an indicator for economic performance, the proposed Composite Index should include measurements related to quality of life as well as social progress.”
“I believe not all job processes can be significantly improved to a desired productivity level to enable a worker to be paid fairly according to the value of the work done. I am also sceptical that continuing education and training will eventually equip all workers with sophisticated skills set to command higher wages. There will come a day when Singapore will achieve significant productivity growth and skilled efficiency to move up the economic value chain. When that day arrives, can our low-skilled workers catch up and move up the value chain as well? Based on historical data, the wages of these workers may be left stagnant again as I have highlighted in this House before. When that happens, we may have to consider a minimum wage policy. I would like to state that the Workers' Party is not advocating the introduction of minimum wage at this point of time. It would be preferred if our workers can command good wages by being competitive internationally and doing high-value work. However, if our low-wage workers are still not uplifted despite the efforts of productivity growth and CET, minimum wages may have to be considered. The Government has incentivised innovation and productivity improvements. It hopes that the various industries can show progress in these areas. Since the aim of all these efforts is to uplift wages, the Government should work with the various industries to set tangible wage benchmarks for workers to strive towards. I propose a Minimum Wage Advisory Board to be set up by the Government to undertake research on the recommended minimum wage for specific industries in consultation with the employers and the unions. Recommended minimum wage can provide a tangible benchmark for the labour market to follow. It can also prevent the exploitation of labour.”
“Until that happens, how is the low-wage worker going to face the rising costs of living? Workfare Income Supplement Scheme (WIS). I support the principle behind WIS but there is room for improvement. It should be expanded to better narrow the income gap. First, there should not be a minimum three-month work requirement to qualify for WIS. Secondly, WIS should be paid out every month that the worker remains employed instead of a half-yearly or yearly payout currently. This will be more effective in helping workers meet their monthly expenses. The current policy requires informal workers to make Medisave contributions before qualifying for WIS payments, which are credited entirely into their Medisave accounts. This policy should be revamped as it discourages participation in the WIS. Informal workers should receive their WIS payments without any preliminary Medisave contributions. A portion of the WIS payment should be in cash. WIS payments should be increased, so as to benchmark against the costs of living and an income sufficient for a decent and dignified life in Singapore. The major portion of the WIS payment should be in cash. The quantum of WIS payments for informal workers should be raised to match that of formally employed workers. Recommended Minimum Wage (RMW). While I believe that skills training and upgrading as well as productivity growth should have some effects on lifting the incomes of some low-wage workers over time, I am of the view that we should track these strategies closely to determine if they are sufficient and effective overall, and not denounce the option of minimum wage too soon.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, despite economic expansion in the past years, the 2009 report on wages in Singapore shows that the medium monthly gross income for cleaners, labourers and related workers went up by only $37 to $1,307. The GDP growth has created an uneven distribution of income and wealth in the past decade. The Gini coefficient for employed households has been climbing steadily since 2000, reaching 0.489 in 2007 before easing off in the past two years. At its peak, Singapore was reported as No. 2 on the list of top countries with the biggest gaps between the rich and the poor. The wealth-divide continues to widen as prices of private properties continue to climb. Data release by URA shows prices of private apartments within the city central have broken their previous peak recorded in 2008. The average monthly income of bottom 20% of households have been in decrease in the past decade. In contrast, about 50% increase for the top 20% of households. The wage gap between the top and bottom income earners has also widened from a decade ago. In 2009, the top 20% of households earns 12.7 times the income of the bottom 20%, which is one of the highest income gap in the world. The Resilience Package and other Government schemes in 2009 helped to push the Gini coefficient slightly lower but these measures could only provide temporary relief. It is clear that our society is at risk at being polarised by the issue of growing income gap and uneven wealth distribution. In uplifting the lower-income group or low-wage workers, I have noted the Government's commitment to invest in re-training our workers and to encourage businesses to improve productivity. The end result is just a hope that there will be a rise in wages.”
“I take it that the Minister has no intention to raise the retirement age which will affect the Draw-Down Age of the CPF.”
“The Minister earlier on said that he will focus his effort on re-employment within the age range of 62 and 65, and to raise the retirement age to 65. But the Bill also provided for raising the retirement age to 67. I would like to ask him when he intends to raise the retirement age to 67. Is it during the next term of Government?”
“Sir, the Minister disagreed to allowing Singaporeans to draw down the CPF earlier. I would like to seek clarification from the Minister, whether he thinks that it is fair for the Government to hold on to the CPF of Singaporeans whilst not being able to assure Singaporeans of job security between the ages of 62 and 65, or up to 67.”
“Thank you, Sir. The Member referred to our proposal that workers should be allowed to draw down on the CPF savings at the age of 60. He said that would affect the quality of life in retirement. I would like to seek clarification from him as to how he thinks allowing Singaporeans to draw down on their CPF at age 60 would affect their quality of life, with insufficient fund – that was what he is referring to. If this is so, perhaps the Member could explain why it is so. Is it that our workers are not being paid enough and thereby after working for 30-40 years when they reach the age of 60, they still have insufficient funds in their Retirement Account to enable them to have a proper retirement and to have a certain reasonable standard of living and quality of life which is the same as any other first world country?”
“In fact, under such circumstances, the employer can easily make the contract so harsh that it cannot be accepted by the employee. In my view, this amendment is a half-baked Bill which seemingly can solve the employment issue before people are allowed to take out their CPF savings, yet in reality, it cannot guarantee that Singaporeans will continue to be employed until the age of 65, only by then can they take out their CPF savings. The dilemma Singaporeans will face in the future is that they might lose their job when they reach 62, and yet are not allowed to take out their CPF – the money that has been saved all their life for retirement. Now, they have to wait till 65, 67 or even older! I think the Government should allow people to take out their CPF savings when they reach 60. Retirement age shall not be linked together with the CPF draw-down age. The Government can, through incentives, encourage people to continue working and delay taking out their CPF savings voluntarily.”
“[For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] When we debated the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill in September 2007, the Workers' Party objected linking the retirement age with the CPF draw-down age. We were also against increasing the draw-down age from 62 to 67. Although Singaporeans are living a longer life these days, longer life does not necessarily mean they still have the energy and health to continue working. What is more, whether *Cols. 2341-2342. there are employers willing to hire people reaching 60 years is still a question. We were worried that the CPF policy will put people in an awkward situation whereby they cannot find a suitable job on one hand and, on the other hand, they cannot take out their CPF savings to maintain their livelihood. They might end up "hanging in mid-air". Now we are debating the Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill to try to solve the problems we have pointed out before. The Bill requires the employer to offer workers reaching 62 a new employment contract and re-hire them. However, we should take note that the Bill also gives employers the option of not doing so. Instead, they can offer the older workers a one-off employment assistance payment. If the employers are allowed by law to do this, then workers reaching 62 are likely to lose their job. If they cannot find a new job and are not allowed to take out their CPF, how can they make a living? The Bill also provides that if the employee's performance is not satisfactory, the employer has the option not to offer him a re-employment contract. While drawing up the new contract, the employer can also change employment terms and conditions including the wage, type and scope of work.”
“Sir, the Minister said that this is a case of human failure or perhaps the supervision problem of the officer concerned. I would like to ask what MOF is doing to deal with the problem of human failure and what are the safeguards to make sure that the supervisors do supervise properly and also, who supervises the supervisors? Second supplementary question, Sir. Does the Minister not agree that as a layman, it will be difficult to understand, despite the internal audit, external audit and whatever stringent rules that MOF lays down on the Civil Service on procurement procedures, and yet this could happen and it is a huge sum of money that is being cheated out of the Government's coffer by the officer and not only in one Ministry, but also in some other agency as well and during such a long period of time? So the question is: what is internal audit, external audit and supervision for? From a layman's point of view, I suppose it should be very stringent and should have prevented all these happenings.”
“Sir, I would like to ask why the CPIB or the Commercial Affairs Division (CAD) was not able to pick up this case.”