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 16 of 54.
“[For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Sir, during the 2006 General Election, I asked the Government whether it would implement means testing. The Health Minister's answer then was that he had not thought about the question. However, he has now decided to implement means testing. The questions we should focus on are: (1) As a matter of principle, is it correct? Hospitalisation is a critical need of the people when they fall sick, which must be assured. It is just like defence which is the security safeguard critical to the people. Thus, all male citizens have to fulfill National Service duties. Regardless of whether one perceives himself to be fit enough or to have the capability to become a soldier, he will be enlisted into NS. Similarly, the Government has the same obligation, based on the same principle to provide a medical safety net to the people. (2) Who should decide the affordability level of medical expenses? Means testing deprives Singaporeans of the right to determine for themselves what they can afford for hospitalisation. This is a fundamental change. Currently, patients evaluate their own financial situation to decide which class of hospital ward to be admitted to, as the Government subsidies are simply based on different classes of hospital ward . With means testing, even if a patient feels that he cannot afford the medical expenses and decides to be admitted to C class ward, the Govern ment will use means testing to prescribe his capacity to pay and determine that he pays higher medical fees. (3) What is the motive for implementing means testing? The purpose is to allow the Government to justify reducing healthcare subsidies in the name of charging patients based on affordability.”
“Sir, the Government spends a lot of money on R&D, and the Minister said that A*STAR aims to have 1,000 local PhDs by 2015. Can I assume that all of them are Singapore citizens? Is this target pool of 1,000 big enough to have a critical mass for Singapore to sustain its R&D efforts in the long term? Besides the scholarships which Minister of State mentioned just now, does MTI have any other plans to attract Singaporeans to take up R&D as a career, besides animal trainers? What other opportunities are offered to the local graduates who take up R&D as a career? What is the strategy for MTI to actually move Singapore up the value chain in R&D? Is MTI complacent with being guppies in R&D?”
“Sir, one of the key features of Budget 2008 is to create a top quality economy with innovation playing a pervasive role. One of the ways to achieve that, according to the Finance Minister, is to increase the investment in world-class manpower and new R&D capabilities. The recent A*STAR Annual Report discloses that $5.4 billion has been allocated to engage in R&D from 2006-2010. Budget 2008 would probably move this figure even higher. It is reported that the Agency has a team of 3,200, comprising 2,000 researchers, of whom about 1,200 hold PhD qualifications, and a third of them are Singaporeans. The Report also states that commercialisation of technology is a key priority for A*STAR. It has, to date, licensed out 100 technologies and spun off 19 active companies. My questions are: (1) How many Singaporean researchers with PhD qualifications have been nurtured by A*STAR, since the agency was established in 2002? While it is important to attract whales, we must understand that these mammals are migratory in nature. Singapore needs guppies, and local guppies to be precise, to stay and grow the R&D capabilities. Further, we should not have guppies' mindset, or we will always be overwhelmed by whales. Can we become sharks instead of just guppies? (2) Does the Government believe that this number is a good achievement in relation to the billions A*STAR spent on R&D and human capital so far? (3) How much, in money value, has the commercialisation of technology in the 19 spin-off companies contributed to A*STAR or the Singapore economy to date? (4) As Singapore progressively increases its investments in world-class R&D capabilities, what are MTI's strategy and target for A*STAR to help Singapore achieve its top quality economy?”
“Sir, what she has said is asset enhancement needs to prioritise, and not an entitlement. Then the question is: how do you apply the Government fund, which is the people's money, fairly to everyone? And is the priority criterion equitable? Is it fair that priority criterion is so designed to deny Opposition wards for upgrading and thereby the benefit of getting the MUP? This comes to the point in my speech that my residents serve National Service and pay the same rate of tax as other Singaporeans. Why should they be treated differently in the priority scheme and why should they be discriminated against because of political affiliation? How do you justify the application of fund and to enhance assets selectively for the PAP supporter's benefit?”
“The question that I would still want to pursue is: what is the cost cap for HIP and would she publish the average cost per flat, per precinct, for different flat types? The Government has completed a number of precincts for MUP. Let the public know how much the Government has spent on the individual units of flats that have benefited from the MUP. Sir, the third clarification: would the Ministry consider in the future to outsource HIP to maybe Town Councils or HDB Branch Office in order to expedite HIP?”
“Sir, I have three clarifications for the Minister of State. Sir, the Minister of State says that the purpose of upgrading is not an asset enhancement scheme. But I would like to ask her whether she has read the PAP's manifesto of the 1997 general election. Secondly, was she aware that her leader, the Senior Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, at one of the election rallies, threatened the voters that, if they voted for the Opposition, their flats will not be upgraded and that Opposition wards would become slums one day? Second clarification. She said that the cost cap in HIP and average cost per flat of MUP may not be meaningful. Surely, I think she would agree that this has something to do with the transparency of Government expenditure; moreover, MUP and IUP spend a lot of money, eg, IUP at $6,000 per unit.”
“Sir, I would like to report that there is some progress. The Minister of State did not ask me to wait many years. But there are questions. First of all, she mentioned about the cost cap per unit. What is the cost cap? And what is the average cost per unit of Government expenditure on MUP? She says that now the HIP is based on need. I would like her to clarify whether MUP was based on need as well because the principle is different. I note that for MUP project, carparks were upgraded and some of the flats even got IUP first. Linkways were built and when MUP came, the linkways were torn down and another type of linkway was built. So, is MUP based on need? It is based on asset enhancement, enhancing the whole area and now she is telling me that it is based on need. So why is the discrepancy in the philosophy and principle of using public funds to benefit different households and, depending on your luck whether you are selected first? I think it is not fair to those who are not being selected, not only in Hougang but perhaps in PAP wards as well. Because they do not receive the benefits from the government expenditure put in to enhance their flats and the property agent will tell you, "Yes, those who have MUP, the flat prices are higher." How do you explain that? Sir, on HIP, I think she has not answered a question. Since MUP is now broken into HIP, LUP and Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP), she has said that Hougang residents can look forward to LUP. How about HIP?”
“I would like to urge HDB to scrutinise the repair method of contractors, produce guidelines and good practices so that these leakages do not keep coming back and inconvenience the residents. The next point is that we are competing for construction resources. Are we confident that important projects, such as the Youth Olympic Game Village, can be completed on time? My last clarification is: just now, it was mentioned that there is upgrading of parks by the National Parks Board. I would like to know how many parks will be upgraded under this scheme. By the way, for EUP, from the number that was benefiting last year, I think we will wait for a very long time.”
“Along the same rationale, we cannot insist that every block must get a fair allocation because the blocks are different and so their requirements are different. Some blocks need less to bring lifts to every floor. Some blocks need less to do MUP or IUP. Some blocks do not need MUP, for example, they are not eligible for MUP. To the residents, is there an issue of fairness? It is not. To us, it is an issue of needs. On the pace of HIP, this is a very new project. In fact, we are only piloting in several precincts in Singapore. We will look at how we would want to pace up this project. Again, the length in which we are going to carry out the entire stock of flats will depend on the kind of budgets that we have. At the moment, our focus is to complete LUP by 2014, and that is receiving the most of our attention. For that, Hougang residents can look forward to by 2014. Er Lee Bee Wah: Sir, by the way, residents in Nee Soon South are also waiting for the HIP. I would like to seek a few clarifications. Firstly, the Minister mentioned that HDB is building basic flats as well as some higher-end HDB flats to fulfil the varying needs of Singaporeans. I would like to ask the Minister: since the private sector is capable of building higher-end housing, should HDB just be restricted to build the very basic flats? The next clarification is that just now, MOS mentioned that HDB repairs some flats without charge if it is due to design or workmanship problems. I would like to ask how many units HDB has done under this "repair without charge". The next clarification is, just now, I mentioned about the leakage, ie, those recurring leakages in an HDB flat.”
“I am seeking clarifications. It is related to my clarification on her answer on entitlement. We were turned down, the reason HDB gave was that those were segmented blocks. The fund application of the Town Council will benefit only part of block, it is unfair since the fund application cannot benefit everybody in the block. That was the reason we were turned down. Now, it is the turn of MND to use the national budget to fund upgrading programmes. So I want to know how do we apply the fund equally and justifiably to everybody. She has also not answered the question of HIP. How many more years do we want Hougang to wait? Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: I think this issue about what is that average cost per unit and what is the cost per project is not relevant. Because if it is really relevant, then we will not be undertaking upgrading for some of the more difficult blocks. There are some blocks existing, for example, like lift upgrading, which is relatively simple that the TC can carry out - less than $5,000 per benefiting unit. But there are some blocks which require up to a budget of $30,000 per benefiting unit. So this is not an issue about "fen hong", everybody fen a little bit. It is not a case that you have a standard allocation of funds to each unit. We have to look at the blocks to see what is required to bring lift access to the floors. The blocks are built in different ages and different times so they have different configurations. Therefore, the cost required to bring lifts to every floor is different. And that has been our principle that we adopt. What we have is a cost cap. And that cost cap is preventing too much financial resources being devoted into specific blocks or specific precincts. That is really to make sure that we do not over-spend and to reduce wastage.”
“The question on what is the average cost of MUP has not been answered and what is the projected cost for HIP, and whether the house owner will receive almost the same amount. Would the Minister of State agree that while it is not an entitlement to everybody, you are using the national budget? It involves application of funds, and application of funds has to be fair to everybody. So it is important to know how much each household will benefit. I do not know whether the Minister of State is aware, but in the past, the Hougang Town Council wanted to do lift upgrading of a precinct.”
“Sir, the first question is: is Hougang denied MUP since it is confirmed that MUP is now being replaced by HIP and NRP? Second, what is the average cost per flat of MUP that the flat owners will benefit? Third, why replace MUP with HIP and NRP? Is it for the Government to save money? What happens to the asset enhancement scheme which the PAP promised to Singaporeans? HIP's priority criteria. Does Hougang have to wait for many years again for HIP until the programme is scrapped?”
“Sir, leading researchers from around the world have warned that global agriculture, already stressed by climate change, could go into steep unanticipated declines in some regions due to complications that scientists have so far inadequately considered. It was also reported that India and China banned rice exports recently, with China being cited to have done so to meet domestic demand. As Singapore imports more than 90% of our food from overseas, what is AVA's risk management approach towards an uninterrupted food supply, apart from broadening our external food sources? A diversified external food sources approach may ensure stability in the supply chain for Singapore in the short term. But if a worldwide food shortage crisis occurs, this approach may not be effective. Furthermore, political pressure in a food shortage crisis will force many food producing countries to ban exports so as to meet domestic demand first. I would like to ask the Minister: (1) Can intensive high-tech farming technology significantly boost our local farm production rate, thereby inching Singapore towards a less vulnerable position in the food supply chain? (2) Can leading-edge technology and new generation scientific methods of farming produce essential food items, such as rice or wheat, in Singapore? (3) How much land, as a percentage of our total land mass, is currently being used for intensive high-tech farming? Will the Government release more land for such use? (4) In the latest AVA Annual Report, the phrase "extra big" appears many times in the report. I wonder what is so big in the AVA. Perhaps, the Minister would like to tell this House what extra big plans he has in mind to make Singapore self-sufficient in food?”
“To expedite the HIP, the Minister may want to consider delegating HIP to Town Councils to speed up the implementation of the programme. Alternatively, he can also consider allocating the funds to HDB branch offices to better target essential repairs to deserving flats under their charge.”
“Taking an average cost of $30,000 for a basic upgrading package and factoring in the co-payment formula, this Government owes every eligible flat owner in Hougang constituency $22,000 to $27,000 for the long overdue upgrading. In 1995, the Minister for National Development said that the upgrading programme is a long-term programme. It will take 15-20 years to upgrade all the old estates. Since the MUP was started in 1990, I take it that by 2010, all MUPs would have been completed. However, I am surprised to learn from the MND budget that MUP and IUP will be replaced by the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) and the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP). The MUP aims for precinct level upgrade and enhancement whereas the HIP deals more with building defect rectification works. The NRP, on the other hand, is more like the IUP or improvement works undertaken by the Town Councils. So where is the MUP equivalent in scale and level of estate upgrading, as promised to Singaporeans under the asset enhancement scheme? Since the HIP's criteria are similar to MUP, with the level of political support as a factor, would that put the opposition wards last in the queue again? In other words, will opposition wards need to start all over again and wait many, many years for HIP to happen? Last year, I visited a resident who was injured by falling concrete slabs due to spalling in the kitchen of his flat. As the flat continues to age, spalling concrete can become an issue of safety. Unless the Minister thinks that the safety of residents living in HDB flats in Hougang is of lesser concern than those in the PAP wards, it is only right for the Minister to shorten the waiting time required for HIP to be implemented in the opposition wards.”
“Sir, the HDB Main Upgrading Programme started full swing after the 1991 general election. Its objectives are to renew older HDB estates and to share the wealth of the nation with Singaporeans under the asset enhancement scheme. The programme became a political tool for the PAP in 1997 general election under a blatant abuse of power by the PAP Government to alter voting behaviour. Politics aside, the upgrading programme is funded by the national budget, and the money belongs to all Singaporeans. Denying Singaporeans living in opposition wards, this publicly funded programme is highly discriminatory in nature. Does the Government need to be reminded that residents of opposition wards perform national service duties, and pay the same rate of income tax and GST as any other Singaporeans? When I took up the issue in Parliament, the Minister's answer was that the criteria for HDB upgrading are based on the age of the flats, geographical spread and support for the programme. When I asked about Hougang's turn for upgrading, the Minister's reply was that Hougang was not due for upgrading for many, many years. Twelve years have passed since the Minister made that statement in 1996. Now I am asking again. Is the wait long enough now for the MUP to come to Hougang? Or is Hougang constituency denied MUP? Are the so-called criteria for the HDB upgrading programme a convenient excuse for the PAP Government to abuse its position in power to discriminate against Singaporeans along the line of political affiliation? I understand that in 1991, the projected average upgrading cost per flat was $30,000-$38,000. I would like to know how much the Government had spent, on average, for each HDB flat type under MUP by individual precinct completed so far?”
“Of course, I do believe that the vote is secret. Otherwise, I would not even participate in the elections.”
“Sir, I am pleased to learn that the Elections Department has a plan to have some sort of voter education. I would like to know whether the Elections Department will have some focus, in particular, on the question of secrecy of votes, because there are still some Singaporeans who are wary about the vote, whether it is secret, especially with regard to the serial number, and also the way voters enter the polling station for the voting, how their names are being called and the atmosphere that is created. Perhaps the Minister may want to elaborate on what sort of voter education that he has in mind.”
“Sir, the first clarification. The Member in his speech asked why should we quarrel with the discrepancy in the estimates because we are in a happy situation, as we have a huge surplus instead of a deficit. Sir, does he agree that he misses a point – the point is not so much of whether we end up with a huge deficit or a huge surplus. The question is, why are the Budget estimates so much off the mark? Second clarification: he referred to Hong Kong, and he said that if our estimates are off the mark, Hong Kong is even worse than us because they are off the mark much more than Singapore's estimates. I am afraid that if this is the attitude of the PAP, we are going down a slippery slope. We are not so good in estimates, he says, but, never mind, there are people who are worse than us. Sir, in Mandarin, this is exactly what we call Ah Q jing shen.”
“Sir, may I seek a clarification from the Member?”
“Is it because the scheme is not perfect and is unable to meet the objective of helping the low-income group? Or is it because the relevant message has not been widely disseminated? Therefore, a lot of the low-income people who are not well educated do not know of the existence of this scheme. I believe the Government should find ways to disseminate the information on WIS more extensively and consider asking the employers to cooperate by informing their eligible employees, and help them to apply for WIS scheme.”
“In the previous fiscal year, the Government raised the GST by saying that the money was not enough and hence it needed to dip into the pockets of the people. Since we have such a huge surplus now, by right, the Government should reverse the 2% increase in GST. I therefore propose the Government reduce the GST by 2%. Perhaps the Government does not know that although last year's economy seemed very good and the growth exceeded our expectations, not all the industries were benefiting from the growth. Some people did not receive any bonus. Moreover, the outcome of the economic growth has come with spike in the inflation rate. Many people face a lot of pressure in their lives. Even in employment, there are people suffering from unreasonable treatment; they also face competition from foreigners. A resident in my constituency has written a letter to me to tell me about his father's predicament. I will now read it out in English. (In English ): "My father is 69 years old, was retrenched, found a job as a security guard with a security agency company. He does 12-hour shift duties at $45 per day. He has passed his medical test, obtained his NSRS test and the certificate was held by the agency. He speaks English, is fluent in Mandarin and other Chinese dialects. Up to date, he is still working with the agency which is coming to 18 months. For Chinese New Year, he received only $20 ang pow. There is no CPF, no holiday pay. No work, no pay, no medical benefits. Overtime pay at times only." (In Mandarin): Sir, although this constituent's father is qualified for the WIS scheme, according to the Govern ment statistics, many who are eligible did not apply. I think the Government should really study the reasons why some of the eligible people did not apply.”
“[For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*. ] Mr Speaker, during last year’s Budget debate, I pointed out that the Government used the excuse of helping the poor to raise the GST by 2% in order to afford the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme (WIS) payment which was estimated to cost the Government $400 million a year. I believe that it was an excuse given by the Government to raise the GST. I was of the view that the Government should be able to afford the WIS expenditure without increasing GST rate. In the previous Budget for FY2007/08, the Government had projected a $0.7 billion deficit. But, now, it was announced that the Government would have $6.4 billion surplus. The Finance Minister explained that this is due to the growth which exceeded our initial expectations. On top of that, it is also due to the unusually active transactions of the property market resulting in the increase in stamp duty collections. The PAP Government prides itself in being far-sighted. The Ministry of Finance should therefore also have been able to project the economic outlook and the trend of revenue collection under each revenue head. However, the financial status of the Government shifted from an expected budget deficit of $0.7 billion to a $6.4 billion surplus. The gap is far too wide. I would like to know if the Government has been overly conservative in its estimates of revenue which resulted in a deficit position in budget estimates in the last fiscal year, so that it could have valid reasons to justify raising the GST from 5% to 7%. If our Government continues to have such a huge discrepancy in the Budget estimates, it would raise the question of reliability of its budgeting estimates and would also affect the Government's credibility.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether Potong Pasir will be given lift upgrading before 2014. I do not think she has answered that question.”
“Sir, further clarifications. I am not sure now whether the GIC does use money derived from CPF to invest given the latest answer by the Minister. If that is the case, then my next question is: does the Government shortchange Singaporeans by giving CPF members 3.5% of the interest rate while the GIC makes 9% and pockets the balance of 5.5%? And the third question leading to that is: is the motive of holding payment of CPF, the draw-down age, to enable GIC to have a readily available and cheap source of funds to invest?”
“Sir, I would like to seek clarifications from the Minister. Does the Government Investment Corporation (GIC) use money derived from CPF to invest? If the answer is yes, then the next question ---”
“Thank you, Sir. I refer to the Member's speech in which he referred to the Workers' Party's suggestion pertaining to the CPF draw-down age and the retirement age. He went further to say that Singaporeans would not work if they started to draw on CPF. I would like to ask him whether he is saying that Singaporeans are lazy, would not work, if they are allowed to withdraw their CPF, hence the Government has to continue to hold the CPF money for as long as it could.”
“From my meet-the-people sessions, I have come to the conclusion that most Singaporeans are responsible and they have moral integrity. Not everyone will queue up for the Government's handouts, neither will everyone able to live such a long life to enjoy from the fund. Mr Speaker, Sir, during the recent Asian financial crisis, the older Singaporeans were the first to bear the brunt as they were retrenched and deserted by the employers. They faced unemployment, no income and much hardship in life. Many still feeling the fear recalling the past. Delaying the draw-down age for the CPF Retirement Account will cause the people to have more worries and anxieties. I hope the Government will carefully review the policy. To enable Singaporeans to forge an identity with the nation, policies should not be formulated based purely on digits and economic considerations, neither should the Government approach the issue of retirement from an economic benefit perspective. If the Government's policy causes a change in the people's values, thinking that old people cannot contribute economically and hence they are a burden; then the Chinese saying "To have an old person at home is like having a treasure" will become "To have an old person at home is of no value." This, in the long run, will affect the cohesiveness of our family unit and our society. *Cols. 1835-1838. 3.27 pm”
“Generally, people buy life insurance because they are afraid that they may die young and their family may run into financial difficulties. But in this world today, longevity itself has become like a sin and the people are now being forced by the Government to buy an annuity lest they cannot fend for themselves in their old age. Singaporeans have worked so hard all their lives. They have contributed much to our nation-making process to make Singapore what it is today. Our people have worked hard and they have contributed much. Credit must be given to them. But now, if one lives a long life and his CPF savings are exhausted, they may have no money for their old age and suffer in life. Now, the Government is forcing them to buy an annuity so that they can have money for their old age. I think this is an irresponsible act on the part of the Government. Therefore, I urge the Government to set up a "Longevity Fund" and make monthly payouts to Singaporeans who have lived beyond the age of 85 and who are in financial difficulties, so that those who live longer can enjoy a secure retirement, and not wishing to see those people who are unable to contribute to the country vanish into thin air so that they will not add to the economic burden of the country. I feel that the call for the establishment of the Longevity Fund is not unwarranted. I am sure the Government can well afford it. From what I know, in Vietnam and Nepal, they have such a social security scheme so that the people can enjoy their old age, yet their countries' economies have not gone bankrupt because of it. I feel that the people in Singapore, particularly Singaporeans of my generation, will have savings in their CPF, moreover, this money is still in the hand of the Government subjecting to manipulation.”
“It also does not mean that they will continue to have the energy and drive at work. Not allowing Singaporeans to start drawing down on their Retirement Accounts at the age of 62 would result in some Singaporeans having to work till they are old or even until they are dead. If we want all Singaporeans to work until a ripe old age, even in their sunset years, and continue to worry about being retrenched and not being able to make ends meet, this is certainly not a correct phenomenon in Singapore as we aspire to progress into a world-class country. This also cannot be the kind of "positive retribution" in life for the people in a world-class country. The Government is making it compulsory for the people to purchase annuities. Although the details are still being worked out by a committee, it is a foregone conclusion. I think this compulsory annuity scheme will not solve the problem that the Government is worried about. This is because not every CPF member has adequate funds in his CPF account for the premium to be deducted by the Government. What about those who do not have CPF to enable the Government to deduct directly and who happen to live beyond 85 years of age? What are they going to do? Furthermore, with this reduction made to pay for the premium, the remaining sum would be less, resulting in not having enough CPF money to sustain a longer payout for retirement years. Based on similar insurance schemes in the United States, such insurance scheme may not be fair to the insured because these people paid one lump sum upfront and can only start to enjoy the annuity payout after 20 years. If they do not live that long, they will not be able to enjoy anything from it and all their money will go down the drain. The world today is becoming more strange.”
“[For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] Mr Speaker, Sir, the Workers' Party opposes the Government's proposal to defer the CPF Minimum Sum draw-down age from 62 years old to 65 years old, and eventually to 67 years old. Originally, Singaporeans could withdraw all the savings in their CPF accounts at the age of 55. Subsequently, the Retirement Account was created to cater for the needs of the post-retirement lives and the Minimum Sum was retained at the age of 55. The ever rising Minimum Sum has resulted in some Singaporeans having just $5,000 to be withdrawn from the CPF at the age of 55. Not only that, now the Government wants to further stretch the Minimum Sum withdrawal period from our Retirement Accounts to 67 years. This is too much! Although we support the gradual increase in retirement age, we are of the view that the retirement age and the CPF withdrawal age should be delinked. We encourage people to have lifelong learning. If they are healthy, they can live and work till an old age, there is nothing wrong with that. But having worked so hard for the betterment of their lives, should not our workers be entitled, at the age of 62, to have a choice as to whether they want to slow down and take up a less stressful job or a part-time job? Although the income may be less, with the release of the savings that they have accumulated over the years in the CPF account they ought to be able to provide for their living expenses. In such circumstances, the older workers can then afford to choose the type of life they want for their old age. Although it is predicted that our people will be living longer, longer life does not necessarily mean that they will stay healthy and be able to carry on working.”
“Sir, I would like to inform the Minister of State and it is a feedback that I have on Tan Tock Seng Hospital which ---”
“Sir, I would like to ask the SPS whether he is satisfied with the 30% of job placement rate by CDCs and whether his Ministry has done any review since the WDA has farmed out some of the jobs to the CDCs, in terms of response time and in terms of following up with the jobs. My feedback has not been favourable. So, I would like to ask the SPS whether they would consider a review and perhaps a more efficient system to help the CDCs which, I believe, may be a shortage of staff at times or professionals necessary to deal with job placement and job counselling.”
“When the school becomes operational and if there are indeed traffic concerns raised, LTA will work with the school, Traffic Police and other agencies, such as HDB or Town Council, to identify necessary improvements or modifications to the traffic scheme around the school. Measures taken could include engineering solutions, such as railings to prevent jay-walking or cars stopping, allowing parents to drive into the school to drop off or pick up students, or encouraging parents to make use of nearby HDB carparks and service roads as waiting areas. Despite these measures, LTA recognises that there may be instances where the impact of the traffic cannot be mitigated fully, and congestion may still build up when school is about to start or end. LTA will continue to work with the schools to improve the situation, but I would like to seek residents' understanding as these periods of heavy traffic are usually predictable, and only for a short period each day. Mdm Cynthia Phua (Aljunied): Sir, I would like to ask the Minister why every time when the school has undergone PRIME, as a result of it, there is always problem with the road traffic around the school. If the Traffic Department of LTA has endorsed the plan, why has the situation not improved? And I do not understand why LTA does not consider making it a requirement for the traffic impact study to be done by all schools.”
“DEVELOPMENT PLANS OF SCHOOLS (Vehicular access to surrounding road network) 19. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether there is a requirement for LTA to review and endorse the development plan of schools with regard to vehicular access to the surrounding road network; (b) whether a traffic impact study report is required by LTA for all development/redevelopment of schools; (c) whether it is appropriate for the main access to schools to be located behind bus stops as this will entail parents alighting their children there; and (d) whether LTA approves of such access and whether they are in accordance with road management guidelines. The Minister for Transport (Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat): Mr Speaker, Sir, during a school's planning and development stage, LTA will work closely with MOE or the private education institution to give advice on and endorse the location of the school's vehicular access and drop-off points. LTA will also assess what is the traffic the school will generate and, if the impact of this traffic on the surrounding roads is significant, LTA will require a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) to be made to explore how this can be minimised. The purpose of the TIA is to guide the layout of the school so that the access points to the school can be sited appropriately. Where possible, the main access to the school is located away from the bus stop. However, this would have to be balanced against making it convenient for students who take public transport to get to school. The management of traffic around the school is an on-going process.”
“Sir, I would like to know on what basis the Government assumes that political parties organising events at a public place will necessarily cause law and order problem. Can he cite any example that the Workers' Party had caused such problem when organising events publicly in the past, before the Government banned it? It was allowed in the past in the first place. Secondly, I do not know whether the Senior Minister of State is saying that cycling in the stadium or maybe at the new stadium at Marina Centre is a reasonable proposal. And if it is not, then what is the alternative the Senior Minister of State will propose? Or, perhaps, he wants to consider having a designated specific stretch of East Coast Park for such sporting activities by the political parties, like the Hong Lim Park. But don't tell me to go and cycle at Hong Lim Park. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, whether cycling round the stadium is reasonable is up to the Workers' Party to decide. Like I have said, there are many ways to celebrate its anniversary. They have done it before in a restaurant and many people have come and made speeches. I think, sometimes, the press report them. I think that is all right. As to whether or not if you have an event outdoor, problems may be caused - if Mr Low had listened to my answer very carefully - I don't know whether Mr Low's hearing aid is with him because I know he wears one - I have said that there is a greater potential for law and order problem. Like I have said, you may be well-behaving but there may be other people whom you come across when you cycle, who may stop you or who may want to debate with you, and that may attract a crowd. That will result in problems that the Police wants to avoid. I think that is a reasonable approach.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, can I clarify what the Member has talked about? In Mandarin, Sir. (In Mandarin ): Mrs Josephine Teo said that I had mentioned during the General Election that the Ministers' salaries should be pegged to the lowest 20% of the workers. But I did not mention it in my speech just now. Most importantly, it is now that the Ministers' salaries are pegged to the top 48th earners in the private sector. This has always been the concept. So, a very important point is that the Ministers occasionally may forget that there are some people who are in the very low-income group - they are the poor people. It is for this reason that I mentioned during the General Election that Ministers' salary should be linked or pegged to the lowest 20% income group. Maybe you multiply it by 100 times, is that considered high enough and, if it is not enough, then how much more do we need, maybe an astronomical figure? The second point that I would like to clarify is that she said that we must have high salaries so that we can have a clean and honest government. But I would like to tell her, if a person is greedy, no matter how high the salary is, he will not be satisfied. So can high salary ensure a clean and honest government? This is still a controversial question. Thirdly, I want to clarify that she said that the PAP can be ruling for a long period of time because the Ministers have high salaries, all the civil servants are highly paid, so they are all very clean. But I think the reasons for ruling over a long period of time should be more than this. It includes, for example, during the General Election, amend the General Elections rules ---”
“As far as I am aware, based on the report that I have looked at, which was published by the United Nations, these are the comparisons. Are they that bad? They are not Third World countries. 5.38 pm”
“Sir, on what basis does Minister Mentor think that if the system in Denmark and Switzerland is put in Singapore it will not be able to transform Singapore into what we are today? I want to know what is the basis. I have no claim that it will happen. But I would like to know, from the wisdom of Minister Mentor, why he thinks that it will not happen.”
“Sir, is the Minister Mentor saying that without paying such a high salary, we are bound to fail? Even if we pay top-earner salaries, I do not think the present Government can bring Singapore to superpower status.”
“Sir, I have to admit that these are the reports that I got from the United Nations. They have put up these reports. I believe that, based on the reports of what they have assessed today, they are not lousier than Singapore, in terms of living standards or the performance of the government. They have different conditions from us, but I gather that when we move forward, we are also emulating the standard of living of Switzerland. Are we not?”
“Sir, we agree that public servants should not be expected to make unreasonable financial sacrifice to be in the public sector. However, neither should they be seen being paid unreasonable wages for their contributions. According to the Department of Statistics, the bottom and top 10 decile of employed households registered an average monthly income of $300 and $6,990 respectively in 2006. Given such statistics, the argument that civil servants make unreasonable financial sacrifice is not convincing. Even in the private sector, no organisation can afford to keep paying increasingly high salaries just to retain and attract top performers since resources are inevitably limited. Moreover, in the case of public service, we need a different breed of people to come forward to serve. There is simply no point in offering high remuneration just to entice people to serve if what they are interested in is to make more and more money for themselves and their families in pursuit of material interest in life. Sir, do not forget that even if you do not pay peanuts, but pay with a bigger piece, say, a banana instead, you can still get a monkey. In conclusion, Sir, the real issue is how to find the right leaders to run Singapore and to ensure that Singapore continues to succeed. Benchmarking the civil service and Ministers' salaries to the cream of the private sector's income-earners who may or may not be at the same top all the time is controversial and distracting. I would like to end this speech by quoting what Chua Mui Hoong said in the Straits Times: "How much they are paid is secondary. Pay them well, but do not let pay drive the search for leaders." 5.26 pm”
“Not everyone is cut out for a career in the civil service and the loss of able people who lack such qualities is not a loss to our country. In fact, I believe that civil servants with such qualities will never be induced by the attraction of a private career and a private life, no matter how great the financial rewards offered by the private sector. More importantly, Sir, it is common knowledge that the senior civil servants and Ministers in Singapore are hardly paid peanuts. Although statistics show that officers aged between 28 and 33 make up more than 80% of resignations in the past five years - and I suppose many of these are scholars - it is not unexpected that these officers will review their options when their scholarship bonds end. The alarmingly high percentage speaks of a bigger problem, perhaps, that scholarships funded out of taxpayers' money did not attract the right mix of people. According to one such civil servant who has resigned from the service, he said that the Administrative Service was not the best fit for him. In fact, some who left said that they were drawn by the different challenges and new experiences, more so than by the money. The earlier the Government comes to terms with this, the better for the people of Singapore. If the original intention for the scholarship holders to serve as civil servants is not met and the Government continues to invest more resources in the same process in the hope for a reverse trend, the Government could be wasting precious resources for the wrong reasons and expectations. In view of the above, I think more efforts should be made to explore other recruitment and screening methods to attract the talent for the right fit.”
“For instance, Sir, some possible KPIs that the Government can consider adopting at this point in time are: a 5% drop in Gini coefficient, reflecting efforts to reduce income disparity, for the Prime Minister; a 2% increase in the proportion of trips taken on public transport during the peak hours, reflecting efforts to make public transport a choice mode by the Ministry of Transport; a 5% increase in the total fertility rate, reflecting efforts to address the ageing population by Ministers and civil servants involved in the Committee on Ageing Population; and perhaps, a minimum long-term unemployment rate, reflecting efforts to address structural unemployment by the Ministry of Manpower. By linking variable bonuses to clear and objective KPIs, the Government can concentrate on making the right policy for Singapore, rather than spending valuable resources and time tracking how much private sector's top-earners had made each year and how the Government should therefore be paid. Such objective short-term goals also track the success and ensure that long-term policies can be gradually attained. In addition, this system will ensure that public officers are both accountable and responsible for the outcome of their formulated policies and keep the Government transparent to the public, in terms of its achievements, capabilities and accountability. Sir, I would now like to move on to the issue of recruiting and retaining talent within the civil service. MM Lee has said that it is not possible to hire a foreign talent to run this country because political leaders must have the passion, the commitment and must share the dream of the people. Likewise, such qualities are essential in each and every one of our civil servants.”
“While we accept that basic salary may be benchmarked broadly with the private sector in line with international best practice, we believe that performance pay should also be introduced to establish a visible correlation between performance and pay. Currently, the civil service has no financial bottom line in ensuring good outcomes although part of the senior officers' salary is linked to GDP growth. Sir, while it is necessary to link a percentage of salary to performance, it is also imperative to provide a performance regime whereby it is possible to discriminate performance for non-performers or under-performers, and to reward them accordingly. Sir, in this respect, I welcome the adjustments in civil service pay structure just announced by the Minister. A performance-related pay system requires a comprehensive and objective system of measurement, in particular, performance appraisals have to be more vigorous and transparent to the public, something that the public can identify with. Variable bonus will only be given to civil servants and Ministers if the key performance indicators of the respective Ministries had been met. We recommend having different KPIs for different Ministries from time to time so that Ministers and civil servants can concentrate their effort in deriving the right policy for Singapore in their respective areas.”
“Sir, to cite another example, the 2006 United Nations' report listed that the lowest monthly civil service salary in Finland was 1,200 euros, while the average was 2,600 euros for all wage earners. Even if the purchasing power parity is taken into account, it is highly likely that our civil servants here have a much better deal. Based on such evidence, we believe that there is no need for enormously large salaries to attract and retain the right talent to run a country in an efficient and corrupt-free manner. The Worker's Party is of the view that the Government should consider modifying the current benchmark in place of a more equitable and sustainable one. We suggest that the benchmark should take into account international practice, in particular, countries that could be taken into consideration would be those just cited, such as Switzerland, Denmark and Finland as well as those developed countries. Sir, Denmark, like Singapore, employs a pay adjustment scheme to ensure that the pay of state employees in general and over a long period of time develops in parallel with the wages and salaries in the private sector. For the Danish, their pay adjustment scheme automatically adjusts the central government pay development to the private sector pay development, but subject to a certain time lag. Hong Kong tries to maintain their civil service pay level with the private sector, but they only maintain the broad comparability and not any explicit link. Unlike Singapore, they all do not have a sure-win formula that ensures civil servants always have the best deal by benchmarking specifically to the top few earners.”
“Based on the corruption perception index and global competitiveness index, Singapore ranked below Finland and Denmark in 2005 and 2006. However, the governing of a country should not only take into account these two factors. A more important factor that directly affects the lives of every Singaporean living here is the quality of life. A survey that evaluates 39 quality of living criteria, including political, social, economic and environmental factors, personal safety and health, education, transport and other public services, found in 2006 that Swiss cities had topped the annual survey again while Singapore, with its highly paid and thus highly competent and clean government, ranked best amongst Asian cities, but was 34th in the world. Based on the above facts, it would be interesting to know how much the civil servants are paid in countries such as Denmark, Finland and Switzerland, just to name a few. According to a United Nations' report, the Switzerland Federal Office of Personnel revealed that the basic remuneration of civil servants ranged from 55,000 Swiss francs to 321,000 Swiss francs in 2006 which, based on an exchange rate of about 1.25, was about S$69,000 to S$402,000. Good performers receive merit increments of up to 6% while worst performing staff may get a decrease in salary. Although bonuses can reach 12% of salary for outstanding performers, the residence and overtime allowances are paid, it still seems that the highest-paid Swiss civil servants receive a lower salary than what Singapore civil servants and Ministers receive. But, Sir, we have to note that they have neither a Prime Minister nor a President in Switzerland.”
“By benchmarking civil servants' annual pay against individuals who have performed well during that year, there is an implicit assumption that civil servants and Ministers never make incorrect decisions. But are they truly super human beings, forever error-free? In addition, is there any job in the private sector that can guarantee that an employee is always amongst the highest paid in that sector regardless of the performance of that employee? There is much less job security in the private sector and even top performers face continual and fierce competition. Civil servants have an advantage as they are shielded from competition by foreign talent. Ministers too are guaranteed at least five years of job security from one election to next. Moreover, for the ruling party, there is always the flexibility of changing election rules in their favour to significantly increase job security for their Ministers. After all, did SM Goh and MM Lee not previously admit that the GRCs enabled them to bring in Ministerial materials? It is also ironic that we are consuming taxpayers' money and we are also discussing how much more of a fraction of a million to pay civil servants and Ministers, whilst we haggle over additional tens of dollars to hand out to our needy and disadvantaged citizens. According to the 2005 report by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, the Singapore Civil Service has some of the highest paid civil servants in the world. Our Government holds the view that this will ensure a clean, competent and effective civil service. However, the fact shows that other countries with lower paid civil servants are able to enjoy such qualities.”
“This is inevitable when the variable components of private sector wages, such as bonuses and stock option gains, are taken into account in the setting of annual wages. In addition, the benchmark not only considers the earnings of Singaporeans but also those of Malaysians and Permanent Residents. While most of the individuals in the benchmark change every year, the level of wages taken into consideration will most likely increase over the years. This is largely due to two factors. Firstly, a larger income gap due to globalisation will result in more outliers earning very high incomes. Secondly, the embrace of foreign talents in Singapore will result in a greater pool of high-wage earners that will qualify under the benchmark criteria, alongside potentially increased wage. Even if the Government takes an average from the range within the benchmark, it may not be representative of the general trend of income earned by Singaporeans. In the worst scenario, such a benchmark may even encourage money-minded civil servants to focus on policies that ensure the existence of the pool of top earners that satisfies the benchmark criteria. Apart from the potential embarrassment from an escalating benchmark, that is headed for alarming high levels, it is also highly ludicrous that senior civil servants are consistently one of the highest paid in the workforce. Remuneration in the private sector is volatile and employees are subject to stringent performance reviews. For instance, stock option gains are possible only when an individual makes the correct investment decisions. More often than not, such individuals have also helped to improve the value of the company. However, human beings do not always make the right decisions throughout their entire life.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when this topic on market benchmarking of Ministerial and civil service salaries against the top private-sector earners was first debated in Parliament in 1994, I spoke against it. Thirteen years after Parliament agreed to the salary benchmarks, the debate continues over whether Ministers are being paid too much. The issues I spoke on at the debate remain relevant to date. This is blatant evidence that the public, like me, was not and is not convinced that the salary benchmark is fair and just. I see no point in wasting public resources debating this salary issue every few years, if the sole purpose of having this supposed debate is just to pacify the people that the Government has given it fair thought before approving the high salaries. While the Government can claim to have secured the mandate of the people at the recent elections last year and therefore has the right to pay itself based on the terms of the Government deemed most suitable, I wish to remind the Government that I do not think Singaporeans have given the Government a blank cheque. Given the public disquiet and debate outside this House after the intended salary revision was announced, the Government should seriously consider setting up a panel for public consultation and coming up with a remuneration formula for the public service that can be adhered to, is practical and deemed reasonable by the public. Many people are not convinced of the rationale of benchmarking the current salaries of the Administrative Service, including the Ministers', against the top earners in the private sector. One concern is that it is volatile.”