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 8 of 54.
“Alternatively, we could take the approach of listing the type of offences where a PR may have his status revoked upon conviction. And that is how we disqualify members of the Medical Council or company directors, and there are many examples in our books. This will reinforce the important message that we expect PRs to respect and observe our laws, while providing assurance that Permanent Residency will not be revoked for trivial offences. It will provide some comfort, certainty and peace of mind to many Singaporeans who may be affected by the change. With that, I support the Bill. 3.26 pm Ms Sylvia Lim : Sir, the Bill makes several significant amendments. In particular, there are several provisions allowing for advance screening of persons intending to enter Singapore, by requiring advance passenger information to be provided by operators of various modes of transport. These provisions appear to be geared towards bringing Singapore in line with best practices advocated by the United Nations, World Customs Organisation and the International Air Transport Association to enhance border security. The enhanced screening procedures will give our authorities more reaction time to decide whether certain persons should not be allowed to enter Singapore for security reasons. And this is useful. There are some other aspects of the Bill which I seek clarifications on. First is regarding exclusive immigration clearance. Clause 3 amends section 5 to provide for the Minister to designate certain immigration checkpoints for the separate and exclusive clearance of a particular person or class of persons. Earlier, in the Second Reading speech, the Minister mentioned something about "private marinas". I do not know whether I heard him correctly.”
“About a year ago, a resident attended my Meet-the-People Session (MPS) and complained bitterly that there were too many foreigners living in Singapore. The reason he came to see me? To ask for Permanent Residency for his foreign spouse. The man did not consider his wife "foreign". And I can understand why. We do not consider people "foreign" if we have a close connection with them. And that is true for many of us. Many PRs are married to Singaporeans. Many PRs are fathers, mothers, siblings and related to Singapore citizens. Many work for Singaporean businesses and help them to stay competitive. Many have started businesses and have hired Singaporeans. For these Singaporeans, it is important that the PRs remain in Singapore. For this group, the message from this amendment may not be so positive. Permanent Residency is not a status to be conferred, or revoked, lightly. To give the State more discretion to revoke is one solution. That may be more expedient, but I am not sure that is the best solution. I would prefer if we scrutinised more carefully how Permanent Residency is granted in the first place. For if it is given only to truly deserving cases, then it necessarily should be more difficult to take it away. More importantly, we should not ignore the message we are sending by this amendment. Page: 482 If we wish to include offences which impose fines, may I suggest we set a threshold for such fines. We have done this in other cases. For example, to disqualify a person from standing for elections, the fine imposed must exceed $2,000. Similarly, a person may be disqualified from being a member of the Council of Presidential Advisers or the Presidential Council for Minority Rights if he has been convicted of an offence and received a fine exceeding $2,000.”
“Our position towards PRs has always been this: they live and work in Singapore under the condition that they accept and observe all of Singapore's laws. Should they flout the law, they must face the consequences of their actions. These consequences include the penalties stipulated under our law and, possibly, the revocation of their right to remain here. The amendment to the Good Conduct Condition is consistent with this stand. It extends the right to revoke for a wider range of offences committed, including offences that do not carry a jail term. That being said, the ramifications of the amendment are hardly insignificant. Fines are imposed for a wide range of offences, including relatively minor misdemeanours. I know it will be said that although the ambit is now wider, the State will not exercise its discretion capriciously or for trivial offences. It will also be said that this amendment changes little for the vast majority of PRs in Singapore, who are law-abiding. But the amendment is most significant in the message it sends, and this is a message which can be interpreted in two ways. First, it reinforces the position that PRs are welcome to live and work in Singapore as long as they abide by and respect our laws. That is uncontroversial. But the second is more difficult. This amendment comes at a time when sharper distinctions are being drawn between citizens and PRs, and not just in terms of Government policies, but in society as well. I do not think anyone will dispute that citizens should enjoy greater privileges compared to non-citizens. But what is often forgotten in this debate is that there are many PRs in Singapore because there are Singaporeans who want or need them here.”
“The persons who arranged the marriage may likely be out of jurisdiction, and the accused may have difficulty securing evidence from them. Could the Minister clarify what "reasonable grounds" means in such situations? My next query on section 57 relates to the definition of "immigration advantage". It is presently defined as "the grant or extension of the validity of any visa, pass, permit or re-entry permit". The literal wording of the definition appears to cover situations where the marriage helps one party obtain a Work Permit, an S Pass or a Social Visit Pass. It appears to omit situations where the marriage is used to support an application for permanent residency – not clear, but at least clear if it does not appear to include citizenship. Should the definition of "immigration advantage" not be wider to cover all possible avenues for entry into, or staying within, Singapore? Indeed, as currently worded, the offence would not apply where one party is already legitimately in Singapore on an Employment Pass, but marries to support an application for Permanent Residence or citizenship. Could the Minister clarify the reason for this omission or at least for that definition? My last query on section 57C is really a practical one. It takes some time when the matter was first investigated and then the matter goes to trial and finally, conviction or result one way or the other. Will the couple or, at least, will the foreign spouse be permitted to remain in Singapore throughout that time? Because it takes a long time, you may end up not allowing a foreign spouse to be in Singapore and therefore, keeping two legitimately married people apart. Page: 481 Next, I would like to comment on the Good Conduct Condition for Permanent Residents.”
“However, there may be difficulties in proving that gratification had been given or received or offered. As we are dealing with foreign parties, it may be difficult to prove that gratification was involved, particularly where it is given or received overseas. Further, the requirement of gratification should not be necessary. Proof of gratification would no doubt be strong evidence of a sham marriage, but it should not be a pre-condition. A marriage of convenience entered out of goodwill is no less a sham. And all benefits are not necessarily financial. For example, friends or distant relatives may agree to enter into a marriage of convenience to help one party gain an immigration advantage. While this may be less common, such arrangements are no less an abuse of the system. I would like to clarify how section 57C is intended to catch such arrangements. My second query relates to section 57C and arranged marriages. While no longer as prevalent as before, there are some communities in Singapore that still carry out the practice of arranged marriages with foreign brides. It is common in arranged marriages that a dowry is given before the marriage, and this would fall within the definition of gratification. In such a situation, the husband will often act as a sponsor for his arranged bride to help her secure a visa to Singapore, and this would be considered an immigration advantage. The Bill does acknowledge arranged marriages by providing a defence of belief on reasonable grounds that the marriage would result in a "genuine marital relationship" even if there is gratification. However, there may be practical problems in proving this defence. The couple may know very little of each other. In fact, that is often the case.”
“It will also strengthen our ability to keep Singapore a safe and secure home for all of us. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.17 pm Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh) : Mr Speaker, I support this Bill. I would like to touch on two aspects of it. First, the introduction of the new section 57C, which criminalises marriages of convenience. This is a timely introduction. I do not know if there are, or can be, any statistics on whether such sham marriages are on the rise. But anecdotal evidence from the ground suggests that they are. This is not surprising, given the growth of Singapore and the many opportunities on offer for those who can gain entry here. As a result, many come here legitimately, but some do not. People marry for a variety of reasons, not all of them have to do with love. However, it is in all our interests to deal with those who use marriage as a transactional device purely to enter, stay and work in Singapore. Under the old legislation, there was no explicit provision against marriages of convenience. Offenders were dealt with under section 57(1)(k), which was inadequate in both arresting the problem and in the penalties imposed. The new section 57C remedies these shortcomings, and gives the Ministry greater teeth in dealing with such immigration offenders. That is to be welcomed. However, there are three issues which I hope the Minister will clarify. Page: 480 My first query relates to the evidentiary problems associated with section 57C. In order for the offence to be made out, it must be shown that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the purpose of the marriage was to assist one of the parties to obtain an immigration advantage. More importantly, it must be shown that gratification was involved in the transaction.”
“Given diverse cultural practices and the highly personal nature of marriage, ICA will exercise care and diligence when investigating into any alleged wrongdoing. Ultimately, the courts will have to determine, based on the facts of each case, whether a marriage is bona fide or one of convenience, and impose the appropriate punishment. Page: 479 Clause 8 of the Bill amends section 11 to empower ICA to impose a good conduct condition on the re-entry permits issued to Permanent Residents (PRs). Today, a good conduct condition is imposed on the entry permits of Permanent Residents. It states that the entry permit may be cancelled if the holder contravenes any law or is involved in any activity which threatens a breach of peace, or is prejudicial to public order or public welfare. This amendment will harmonise the good conduct condition imposed on the entry and re-entry permits. It allows for greater calibration in our response when PRs contravene the law or are involved in activities that are prejudicial to public order. In particular, with this amendment, ICA will have the option of revoking an individual's PR status by cancelling his entry and re-entry permits, without having to declare him as a Prohibited Immigrant, as is the current practice. The vast majority of Permanent Residents in Singapore do not pose any threat to our law and order. This proposed amendment will send out a clear message that while we welcome Permanent Residents, they must respect and abide by our laws. Finally, Sir, the Bill also includes a number of miscellaneous amendments which are technical and administrative in nature. Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, this Bill will strengthen our border security and help us to better maintain law and order in Singapore.”
“This amendment will send out a deterrent message to those who try to penetrate our sea borders illegally thereby reducing the number of pursuits at sea and the consequential risk to our officers who patrol the waters. I will now move to the next set of proposed amendments that will help to maintain law and order in Singapore. Currently, there is no specific law against marriages of convenience, or "sham marriages" as some may call them. Clause 29 of the Bill introduces a new section 57C that will allow ICA to prosecute errant couples, middlemen or marriage agencies involved in marriages which are entered into for the purpose of illegally obtaining an immigration advantage. This will include the grant of visas, visit passes, long-term passes and permanent residence. Mr Speaker, Sir, most marriages between Singaporeans and foreigners are genuine but there is a small number who use marriage as a ruse so that the purported foreign "spouse" can stay and work in Singapore. The proposed penalty for this offence is a fine not exceeding $10,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or both. These stiff penalties will serve as a strong deterrent against marriages of convenience. Singapore is not alone in criminalising marriages of convenience. The United States and Australia, for example, have already done so. In Australia, persons convicted of arranging a marriage of convenience are liable to be fined up to A$100,000, or to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding 10 years, or both. The prosecution of marriages of convenience will take into account whether one party in a marriage has offered, given, or received gratification as a reward or inducement for entering into marriage, and other factors such as whether the parties have lived together after the marriage.”
“In the case of a continuing offence, a further fine not exceeding $2,000 for every day or part thereof during which the offence continues after conviction may be imposed. Clause 28 of the Bill amends section 57 to help us deal with immigration offences by criminalising the manufacture and trafficking of immigration paraphernalia used for making forgeries. This includes stamps, seals, plates, machines or other things that may be used for the purpose of unlawfully altering or forging immigration documents. The penalty for the offence is a fine not exceeding $8,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or both. Over the last five years, the number of persons arrested for possession of immigration forgery paraphernalia has increased significantly from just four cases in 2007 to 25 in 2011. This amendment seeks to arrest this rising trend. For persons found in possession of immigration paraphernalia, the Bill includes rebuttable presumptions that the person knew that the immigration paraphernalia was or would be used for forgery, if the immigration paraphernalia was under his custody or in his control when the forgery was made, or if the paraphernalia was specifically designed or adapted for making forgeries. The accused person can rebut the presumptions by producing evidence that he had no knowledge that the immigration paraphernalia was used for forgery, or that it was specially designed to create forged documents. Clause 9 of the Bill amends section 17 to provide that a vessel can be ordered by a police officer or immigration officer to stop at any place and makes it an offence to fail to comply with such an order.”
“First, clauses 11, 13, and 15 of the Bill introduce new sections 22A, 23AA, and 23B, to allow the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) to collect more detailed information on arriving persons before they reach our shores. After 9-11, such a system to collect advance passenger information for security management purposes has been implemented in many countries such as the US, UK, Canada and South Korea. It will also help guard against transnational crimes where criminals easily move across borders. Having advance information will facilitate quick identification of travel patterns, and provide some lead time to deal with security threats and criminal elements. Clause 4 of the Bill introduces a new section 5B to enable the Minister to require the operators of gazetted checkpoints in facilities such as privately-owned marinas to provide and fund specific security facilities and resources for the proper, secure and efficient functioning of these authorised checkpoints. For example, ICA may require the operators to enact barriers for entry and exit, and deploy Auxiliary Police Officers at these premises. These operators will also have to meet our border security standards based on the prevailing threat assessment. In addition, clause 3 of the Bill amends section 5 to allow the Minister to require operators to fund the provision of immigration clearance by ICA at these privately-owned premises. This will include marinas such as Raffles Marina and the Republic of Singapore Yacht Club. Page: 478 The new section 5 will also allow ICA to fine errant operators for security lapses. Errant operators will be subject to fines of not less than $100,000 and not more than $200,000.”
“Page: 476 Employment of Foreign Manpower (Amendment) Bill "to amend the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (Chapter 91A of the 2009 Revised Edition)", presented by Mr Tan Chuan-Jin; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. Second Reading Bills Page: 477 Immigration (Amendment) Bill Order for Second Reading read. 3.07 pm The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr S Iswaran) : Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Immigration Act is the primary piece of legislation in Singapore's statutes that serves to regulate the entry, stay, and exit of foreigners. It has served us well over the years, providing a practical legal framework to facilitate the movement of people, while keeping criminal and undesirable elements at bay. We last amended the Immigration Act in 2004. Since then, the security environment has changed. Those seeking to illegally penetrate our borders have evolved their modus operandi as they seek new ways to exploit any weakness in our border control measures. Transnational criminal syndicates have also become more sophisticated in their attempts to move people or conveyances illegally in and out of our country. While we recognise that the vast majority of people who come to or pass through Singapore are law-abiding, we cannot relent in our efforts and must continue to maintain a tough stand against all immigration offenders. The Immigration (Amendment) Bill will equip us with enhanced legislative tools in two key aspects, namely safeguarding the security and integrity of our borders, and helping to maintain law and order in Singapore. Let me start with the key amendments to strengthen Singapore's border security.”
“Page: 476 Parliamentary Pensions (Abolition) Bill "to provide that service as Members of Parliament and as holders of ministerial and other offices after 20th May 2011 cease to be reckonable for the grant of pensions and gratuities under the Parliamentary Pensions Act (Chapter 219 of the 1996 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to that Act, to provide for the eventual repeal of that Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other written laws", presented by Mr Teo Chee Hean; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. Page: 476 Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill "to amend the Goods and Services Tax Act (Chapter 117A of the 2005 Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs Josephine Teo); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. Page: 476 Building Control (Amendment) Bill "to amend the Building Control Act (Chapter 29 of the 1999 Revised Edition)", presented by the Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Lee Yi Shyan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. Page: 476 Central Provident Fund (Amendment Bill) "to amend the Central Provident Fund Act (Chapter 36 of the 2001 Revised Edition)", presented by the Acting Minister for Manpower (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.”
“But the context of the questions certainly and implicitly raised that possibility and because it is a serious possibility, I had to deal with it openly. That is what this House is for, but I welcome Ms Lim's suggestion and I take it wholeheartedly. I am happy to hear that no allegation whatsoever is being made against the Attorney-General's Chambers. So, we can all at least move on, on the basis that they exercised their discretion properly. 3.02 pm Mr Speaker : Order. End of Question Time. [Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3) Written Answers to Question Nos 17-27, 30-33, 36-38, 40-42, 45-46, 48-57, 60, 62-70, 73, 77-84, 86, 88, 91-94, 96-97 and 99-104 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix (Pg 504-550). Question Nos 13-16, 28-29, 34-35, 39, 43-44, 47, 58-59, 61, 71-72, 74-76, 85, 87, 89-90, 95 and 98 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.] Bills Introduced Page: 476 Civil List and Pension (Amendment Bill) "to amend the Civil List and Pension Act (Chapter 44 of the 2002 Revised Edition) and to make a consequential amendment to the Pension Fund Act (Chapter 224A of the 1996 Revised Edition)", presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Teo Chee Hean); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.”
“] Page: 475 Mr Low Thia Khiang : You are the one playing politics. Mr K Shanmugam : If I may answer without being interrupted. I gave the courtesy of letting Ms Lim finish; Mr Low, thank you. That is why, somewhat hopefully, I went through six cases fact by fact, item by item, and any lawyer would know looking at those six cases that the final result in Dr Wu's case is consistent and falls within those six cases. And I was hoping for what is a really an obvious answer that having looked at these cases, Ms Lim would be fair enough to say, "Yes, I agree. The judgement in Dr Wu's case comes within the framework here." I gave her three opportunities. She did not. It is not a question of questioning the motive but it is rather hoping because of these statements that have been made in various places about the Attorney-General and our judicial system that between two lawyers, Ms Lim and myself, we can put to rest these allegations in a fair, transparent and open way. But it is not to be. Let me deal with the other two questions: whether there would be written grounds of decision. Ms Lim would know the context in which I made the statement. The period for Notice of Appeal has not expired. I do not know whether there would be notice that is filed. I would not know whether written grounds of decision would be given or would not be given, and, in that context, I made that statement. Second, I am glad to note that no allegations are being made against the Attorney-General's Chambers and that it is not being suggested in any way that the Attorney-General's Chambers made a wrong choice or a false choice in choosing the charges that they did against Dr Wu.”
“Yes, I agree. Ms Sylvia Lim : Perhaps I should answer point by point the allegations which he makes and ask him for some clarification as well. The first point is with regard to the PQs I filed. Part (c) of my PQ asked "whether the Ministry has confirmation that written grounds of decision will be given by the sentencing court, despite there being no appeal pending" − this was in the context of statements which the Minister reportedly made in the press saying that we should not make comments on the case until the written grounds of decision have come out. So I am aware that there is no appeal pending, and my question is: why make that statement unless you know that their written grounds of decision are going to come out? Mr Low Thia Khiang : Yes, hear, hear! Ms Sylvia Lim : The second point is on part (b) of my question. I think all of us know that the public is concerned about this case. I did not make any allegation there that the Attorney-General's Chambers has acted mala fides in any way. I am just asking whether that statement issued by the AG's Chambers has addressed public concerns, unless the Minister says there is no public concern on this matter, which I will be very surprised to hear. Thirdly, Sir, I just want the Minister to confirm whether he is actually questioning my motive in filing the Question. Is he alleging bad faith on my part to cast aspersions on the legal system? Mr K Shanmugam : Let me take the third question first − that is the easiest. I am certainly casting no motive on Ms Lim. What I was saying is that it would be helpful in the context of statements that Ms Lim and others had made in the past, that we can actually, in this House, debate issues, look at issues, without having to inject politics into it, which is why – [Interruption.”
“" − [Dr Ng Eng Hen]. Adjourned accordingly at 7.08 pm. Vernacular Speeches Page: 1981 Vernacular Speech by Mr Yeo Guat Kwang Page: 1982 Vernacular Speech by Mr Lee Yi Shyan Page: 1983 Vernacular Speech by Mr Yeo Guat Kwang Page: 1984 Vernacular Speech by Mr Yeo Guat Kwang Page: 1985 Vernacular Speech by Mr Teo Siong Seng”
“Tri-service coordination and integration is also very important. The SAF has older as well as younger new generation staff, covering a whole range of different areas and activities from strategic duties, operations, logistics and even intelligentsia. There will certainly be a range of learning and pedagogy to be applied. How does the SAF plan the training programmes? Are there online learning and courses available besides the more practical hands-on approach? Does it utilise simulation-based learning which is a very powerful and current learning mode? With recruitment of the younger generation, that is, Generation Y, and subsequently Generation Z, they may have a different attitude towards learning with different learning strategies and preferences. How does the SAF ensure that their professional engagement and learning go on? How does it assess continuous learning and professional development in every soldier we have? Finally, Sir, what proportion of MINDEF's budget goes into training, continuous learning and professional development? Page: 1980 Committee of Supply Reporting Progress The Minister for Defence (Dr Ng Eng Hen) : Sir, may I seek your consent to move that progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow? The Chairman : I give my consent. Resolved, That progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow. – [Dr Ng Eng Hen]. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House. Dr Ng Eng Hen : Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2012/2013, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow. Mr Deputy Speaker : So be it. Page: 1980 Adjournment Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn.”
“Has Singapore's strategic objectives been achieved through the deployment and what are the budgetary needs necessary to sustain Singapore's commitment in that conflict zone? What is MINDEF's plan for our deployment in Afghanistan after 2014? Is the SAF withdrawing our deployment there following the US forces' withdrawal? Can MINDEF provide an update on our contributions to humanitarian and peacekeeping missions? How much resource is required for such missions and will that distract MINDEF from the primary role of defending Singapore? SAF's Role in Homeland Security Mr Alvin Yeo : Sir, in the Committee of Supply debate on Ministry of Home Affairs, several Members spoke on the continuing threat of terrorism in the region. The Home Team clearly plays a frontline role in the fight against terrorism, but our SAF also has a pivotal role in the battle, as it seeks to protect Singapore from threats external to Singapore as well as from within. In particular regard, our long coastline is a potential point of vulnerability, temptation for would-be insurgents to enter into Singapore to commit acts which threaten the security of our nation. I would like to ask the Minister as to how he sees the SAF's role in homeland security and, in particular, on the protection of our maritime waters and long coastline. 3G SAF: Professional Development Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade) : Sir, the 3G SAF is supposed to be more lean and potent, utilising new operating concepts and systems. It encompasses areas, such as peacekeeping, counter-terrorism, administration, resource management, training, advanced networks and also unmanned systems. The transformation has been ongoing. These are all necessary for the SAF to evolve and keep up with the trends and times.”
“Sir, the paradigm of the defence strategic environment, especially between our immediate neighbours, appears to be entering a new phase of stability. This will inevitably increase the pressure on the Government to reduce the defence budget for uses such as health and education. I refer to a chart that appeared in the recent edition of the Jane's Defence Weekly on the 18 January 2012, which forecast our defence budget increasing actually from US$9.3 billion in FY 2011 to US$12 billion in FY 2015. Can the Minister please share MINDEF's strategic outlook for the region, with particular reference to the size of an SAF Singapore needs to protect our national interests in the years to come. Afghanistan/Gulf of Aden Mr Alvin Yeo (Chua Chu Kang) : Sir, amidst the peace and security that Singapore enjoys, we must continue to be alert and mindful of parts of the world which face upheaval and security threats. One such area is Afghanistan which continues to endure insurgency and violence. Another problem area is the Gulf of Aden which is plagued by piracy that threatens vital shipping routes. As a responsible member of the global community, Singapore must do and be seen as doing its part. I would like to ask the Minister what contributions we are making in these areas, and how our efforts are being perceived. Page: 1979 Humanitarian and Peace-keeping Missions Dr Lim Wee Kiak : Sir, US President Obama had ordered the US military to withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and to pull out another 23,000 by summer this year. By 2014, the process of transition will be completed, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security. In light of the US action, how does MINDEF evaluate the SAF's role in Afghanistan?”
“Can the Ministry provide some insights as to the nature of operating expenditure and if this amount will increase if we were to pay our soldiers more competitive salaries to attract talent from other parts of the economy? Page: 1978 7.00 pm Strategic Outlook for the Medium Term Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied) : Sir, in view of our ageing population and additional pressure to spend on social security in the years to come, there is a growing perception that the defence budget would require some moderation in future. The security architecture in the region, in particular ASEAN, and the relationship between militaries in the region gives reason to be relatively positive about the low probability of outright military conflict breaking out in the region. This is especially in view of the national resources expended towards defence diplomacy in particular. Most recently, the establishment of the ADMM, the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting Plus 8 in 2010, gives ASEAN an additional dialogue mechanism with the key players in our region – the US, China, India, Russia, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea. Closer to home, the relationship with Malaysia has taken on a completely new dimension over the last few years in particular, especially with the Iskandar region in Johore promoting greater interconnectedness between the two countries, so much so that a train line and even passport-less travel between the two jurisdictions have been proposed. This is a far cry from the atmospherics in the 1990s when the security of PUB water resources in Johore prospectively necessitated the action by the SAF to secure these assets in the event access to them was cut by Malaysia.”
“Since we already have one of the most advanced military hardware in the region, do we really need to continue spending at this level? What is MINDEF's approach to managing the budget? What does MINDEF do to ensure we get value for money spent in defence? Can we afford to be more prudent with finance yet maintaining our edge on the military front? Mr Ong Teng Koon (Sembawang) : Sir, I am a firm believer that security for Singapore is of paramount importance. Without a safe and peaceful country, confident of repelling external threats that are, by definition, unknown unknowns, all that we do for economic development and our efforts towards a more inclusive society will be for nothing if woe befalls us. The Ministry of Defence has been ever so vigilant, enhancing our peace and security through deterrence and diplomacy and building the SAF into one of the most technologically advanced fighting forces in the region. While the absolute expenditure on defence has been steadily increasing from $9.62 billion in 2006 to a projected $12.2 billion in 2012, as a percentage of GDP, it has actually decreased from 4% to 3.5%. This is a function of our strong GDP growth through the years and is a credit to this Government. However, our defence spending is the largest in Southeast Asia and the 7th largest in Asia. It is perceived in some quarters as being on the high side and that this money could be put to use in other developmental areas. Can the Ministry provide some insights to assure us that this expenditure is absolutely necessary? Also, 96% of the defence budget is for upgrading expenditure and the balance of 4% is for developmental expenditure.”
“Dr Lim Wee Kiak, you can take your two cuts together. US Littoral Combat Ships Deployment Dr Lim Wee Kiak : Thank you, Mr Chairman. Sir, the United States Ambassador to Singapore, Mr David Adelman has said that his country may "deploy" three more littoral combat ships after the first one. The first littoral combat ship from the United States, a new type of relatively small surface vessel intended for operations in littoral zone, is expected to arrive in Singapore by the end of this year. The US' plan to permanently station littoral combat ships was first announced by the former Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the Shangri-La Dialogue. The US Ambassador also said that the US would be actually deploying the new type of ships to Singapore, as the word "station" or "base" would be inaccurate. There will be no sailors permanently stationed in Singapore but there will be facilities for the combat ships, as he was quoted saying to the press. Can MINDEF now provide an update on this deployment? How many ships will be stationed, deployed, or based in Singapore? Do we expect an increase in US military personnel in Singapore with this deployment? Managing MINDEF's Budget Sir, MINDEF's budget constitutes a large proportion of the total Government's spending. The total estimated expenditure for MINDEF for FY 2012 is $12.28 billion, and that is about 10% of China's total defence spending. This also constitutes about 20% of the total expenditures by all Ministries and Organs of State. There are calls from various sectors in the public and from Opposition parties, even from a Member of Parliament from the ruling party, to review the defence expenditure with a view to re-channel resources to other social needs of the country.”
“It is hard to believe that all these efforts, directly or indirectly, impact Singapore's safety. As the Deputy Prime Minister and then Minister for Defence Teo Chee Hean once said: "In today's interconnected world, threats, such as terrorism, piracy and pandemics, can easily spread from one country to another. Concerted multi-national cooperation is therefore vital to tackle these threats before they are transmitted across national borders." One new development in the region is the entry of US and Russia at last November's 6th East Asia Summit and the 19th ASEAN Summit. The Chinese viewed this as America's strategy to contain China's growing influence. For ASEAN, whose chief concern is peaceful, political and economic cooperation, the presence of US and Russia contributed to the ideal of ASEAN centrality, that is, every Member equal in status in discussions relating to common interests and conscious of the importance of international laws, especially maritime matters. Another new development is the rising tensions in South China Sea. Shortly after the East Asia Summit, the Philippines protested the Chinese intrusion into its territorial waters. Then, early in 2012, India announced its intention to drill for oil in Vietnamese territorial waters disputed by China. This was followed by China announcing its intention to search for oil in South China Sea. Other parties involved in disputes over the oil-rich South China Sea passage way include Brunei, Malaysia and Taiwan. Against this backdrop of superpower struggles and South China Sea disputes, is there a shift in MINDEF's role in contributing towards the building of the regional security architecture? My second cut, Sir. Page: 1977 The Chairman : Ms Ellen Lee, you can take your second cut later.”
“The Five-Power Defence Arrangement is a series of defence relationships established by a series of bilateral agreements between the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore signed in 1971, whereby the five states will consult each other in the event of external aggression or threat of attack against Peninsular Malaysia or Singapore. The FPDA was set up following the termination of the United Kingdom's defence guarantees of Malaysia and Singapore as a result of Britain's decision in 1967 to withdraw its armed forces from east of Suez. The FPDA provides for defence cooperation and an Integrated Air Defence System (IADS) for Malaysia and Singapore based in the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) Butterworth, with rotating detachments of aircraft and personnel from all five countries. What is the size of our contribution in terms of aircraft and personnel? The regional security situation has changed drastically since 1971. The security threats are completely different now. We are facing increasingly non-traditional security threats from terrorism and piracy. Is FPDA still relevant and effective? Can other forums replace the FPDA? What is the next phase of development for our regional security arrangement? Will we see a combined ASEAN military force similar to NATO forces deployed for UN peacekeeping forces in the near future? Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang) : Sir, the role of MINDEF has changed exponentially and is visible to all. Singapore has a strong network of allies around the world. The SAF is participating in international security and peacekeeping operations in many parts of the world, notably in Afghanistan since 2007, combating piracy in the Gulf of Aden and providing disaster relief to countries affected by the tsunami and earthquakes.”
“Despite our long-term investment in defence, we remain vulnerable. We need to engage ASEAN as a grouping to strengthen our defences collectively, similar to other regional groupings, such as those in NATO. What regional defence arrangements do we have within ASEAN before the establishment of the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting-Plus (ADMM-Plus)? What are the challenges of the regional defence arrangements? What is MINDEF's strategy on leveraging on regional defence arrangements to enhance Singapore's security? The ADMM-Plus is the highest ministerial level mechanism of defence cooperation in the region, which has the ability to direct and guide the cooperation programmes in response to common security threats, especially emerging non-traditional security threats. At the same time, the ADMM-Plus provides a beneficial and an equal playground for all the participants, harmonising relationships and building capacity. Can MINDEF provide an update on the progress of the ADMM-Plus since its establishment in 2010? MINDEF has played an active role towards building the regional security architecture. MINDEF has hosted the Shangri-La Dialogue and also the Five-Power Defence Arrangement. Can MINDEF provide an update on the hosting of the 10th Shangri-La Dialogue and the Five-Power Defence Arrangement's 40th anniversary celebrations? Over the years, what are the achievements of these forums? Page: 1976 I would like to ask: is the Five-Power Defence Arrangement (FPDA) still relevant in today's context?”
“This is evident by a report in The Straits Times' headlines today about China's defence budget. It is also evident that China has been incrementally increasing its budget as well as steadily modernising defence-industrial complex, which has been enabled by comprehensive military modernisation and integration of innovative operational concepts. The net effect is expanded and extended capabilities of China's strategic missile forces. Against this interesting backdrop, what is MINDEF's assessment of our regional security environment and what are the key challenges ahead? US has also in recent years accelerated and reinforced American presence in the Asia Pacific with the proposed forward deployment of forces in Australia and also deployment of ships in Singapore. What has prompted US to do this? Is this a reaction to China's increasing military presence in our region? Will this lead to a further increase in Chinese presence or a race for dominance in our region? How has the evolving US-China relationship impacted our regional security arrangement? What are the likely security flash points in the near future? What is MINDEF's assessment on the Korean Peninsula, Middle East, Afghanistan and South China Sea? What is the status of our bilateral defence relationships with our neighbours, the major powers and our key regional partners? In particular, what is our defence relationship with our immediate neighbours – Malaysia and Indonesia? I understand we do engage our neighbours in bilateral or multilateral military exercises. How many exercises do we have annually and what is the value of such exercises? Has the tempo of such exercises increased or decreased over the years, and why? Singapore is a small country with limited resources.”
“Page: 1974 Committee of Supply – Head J (Ministry of Defence) Regional Security Environment Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Nee Soon) : Sir, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head J of the Estimates be reduced by $100." In the beginning of this century, the events of 911, with the shocking collapse of the twin towers repeatedly shown on TV screens world-wide and the resultant heavy loss of lives, heralded the arrival of the global threat of terrorism and non-traditional security threats. That threat was brought closer home here when similar plans in Singapore were uncovered. Fortunately, our intelligence was able to piece together reports and arrested the would-be perpetrators in December 2001. Failure to do so would have had dire consequences for Singapore and the region. This incident underscored the need for Singapore to play our part in multinational efforts to counter the threat of global terrorism. The security threat that we are facing now is very different from the past. How has MINDEF transformed in light of the changing security threats? Are our current 3-G armed forces capable of handling the new non-traditional security threats? Page: 1975 The security landscape is changing rapidly in the region in tandem with international security rearrangements and realignment due to the rise of Asia and the Western powers' preoccupation with domestic economic woes. The defence spending of the western powers will be reduced under domestic pressure and the forward projection of forces and influence will be similarly reduced. On the other hand, the rise of Asia on the economic front will provide Asian powers with the necessary resources to expand defence expenditure and extend their influence in our region.”
“We will also track how the workers are faring when they go back to the workforce. We would also be quite happy to have suggestions for other measures. What we are very mindful of is that we have come quite a long way in encouraging companies to send their workers for training. We do not want to make it overly cumbersome such that we deter companies from sending their workers for training. If companies feel that there are too many things to fulfil and if they are expected to then follow up to tell us if they are paying their workers more, that might scare off companies. 6.45 pm The Chairman : We have had almost 45 minutes of clarifications. Could I now ask the hon Member, Mr Zainudin Nordin, if he would like to withdraw the amendment? Mr Zainudin Nordin : Sir, we have had a long debate on the Ministry of Manpower. Allow me to thank the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Manpower, Minister of State Tan and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Hawazi for the comprehensive response to the inputs from Members. I am heartened to note that Singaporeans and our people continue to be the focus of MOM's efforts and policy. If we continue along this route, Sir, I am confident that Singaporean workers of all ages, background and gender will benefit greatly from the growth of the Singapore economy. Please continue to be caring and be Singaporean worker-centric. With that, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $932,997,900 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $30,640,900 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.”
“But I thought the data on the feedback from the trainees were very telling: that many of them want to go back and get more of this training. A lot of them feel more competent, more capable in terms of what they are doing and I think that is important. But the question is, can we have a much more specific measure, a system of measure in terms of the returns on this investment? I think it is something that we are continuing to look at. It is very difficult to find something that can measure that. I suspect it is a combination of both feedback and raw data in terms of how workers themselves perform. We also recognise that there is also a lag time because sometimes even while you have finished your training, it does not necessarily translate to immediate wage increases. It may take some time. It also depends on the industry that they are going back to. But this is an area that I myself, and those within MOM are asking ourselves: we are doing all this for training, sounds good, feedback is good, but are we really extracting the maximum benefits from it? That is something that we will continue to work on. Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo : I would like to ask the Minister of State on the point that he has just made whether one of the ways he would consider measuring the impact of CET is by measuring the impact of the retraining on wage levels of those people who have received training, and not in the short term but in the long term. Those would be easy measures. Page: 1974 BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin : Yes, those are the things that we are tracking. Whether those are sufficient to give us adequate analyses on the returns is something that we will continue to examine. We will also continue to see if there are better measures.”
“Those of us with experience in training are familiar with many instruments that measure learning at knowledge level, skills level and impact on business. I would like to seek clarification if MOM would invest more in that. Page: 1973 Finally, would MOM take stronger leadership in the CET (Continuing Education and Training) for the disabled workforce, just as MOE has played a very active role in recent years in educating people with special needs? I think it would be a waste if these good efforts are not followed through when the disabled persons grow up to become members of the workforce in Singapore. BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin : Mr Chairman, I will take the second question first. With regard to this, I think MCYS will be addressing some of these concerns during their COS. I think from MOM's perspective, we will be open to discuss further in terms of the leadership we could take. Certainly, it is an area that we feel we should support. Presently, we feel that the subject matter experts should drive this and then WDA can step in to see how we can resource it and to recognise some of these qualifications. We will be happy to explore further as to what reasonably we could do. With regard to the first question, I do not have the specific numbers with me now. Certainly, CET is something that we place a lot of emphasis on and we continue to put in good money to make sure that we train our people. But the point is, like I mentioned earlier, it is important to know what are our returns on investment, not just purely for monetary analysis, but to find out whether our workers are really benefiting. Are the wages increasing and so on? From surveys, we do see that wages have increased. The numbers may not be as large as perhaps we would like them to be.”
“These companies are, by nature of being prepared to pay that level of wages, productive companies. This is important for us because if we are not careful, exactly as the concerns that the Member has raised, we could end up losing competitiveness and have companies exiting. It is important for us to be mindful. Operating costs in Singapore are not cheap. However, companies choose to come here, and they come here because of the infrastructure, they come here because we have an open, diverse, competitive workforce. It still makes sense, despite the costs, to be here. When they are here, they generate jobs for us. It does not take much for companies to re-evaluate and go somewhere else. Which is why in the whole calibration of the Work Pass framework, the Employment Pass framework, it is very critical to get it right. We need to make sure that the steps that need to be taken ought to be done. For us, whether at the Work Permit level or the Employment Pass level, productivity is one big area that we need to emphasise. In summary, I would say that in terms of moving into the DRC for the Employment Pass holders, we think that that is not something very wise to do at the moment. The Chairman : Ms Denis Phua, keep it short. Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Moulmein-Kallang) : I would like to seek clarifications. First, Sir, I would like the Minister of State to clarify how much investments have been made in training in the workforce since the last recession. Two, would MOM consider investing in sharper instruments to evaluate the effectiveness of these trainings other than the perceived learning that workers get, for example, where workers say they find the training useful?”
“BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin : In terms of whether we want to implement DRCs for the Employment Pass holders, I would say that as we move the entry level pay higher – for example, previously this level was lower than $3,000 – but as we move it up, what it means is that some of the jobs that previously were drawing $3,000 or those in the range of $3,200, $3,300, $3,500, if one day we were to raise it to $3,500, it would mean that some of those jobs that today are deemed as Employment Pass holders, would then be subject to the S Pass regulations which will be subject to DRCs. At the lower end, as I have said, that is something we will track very carefully based on the wages that we expect Singaporeans to be earning at the entry level when they graduate. We will then use it as a basis to gauge. If that is required to be increased, we will increase that. What effectively that means over time, if we were to increase it from $3,000 to, say, $3,500, what it would mean would be those who previously were employed as Employment Pass holders up to that level, will now become equivalent to the S Pass criteria and that will be subject to those regulations. But at the moment, we do not envisage ourselves using the DRC across the board for the Employment Pass levels. I would like to emphasise also that for this segment of the population, the Employment Pass does bring in workers with certain skill-sets, that both supplement and complement our workforce. We feel it is quite critical because it brings in good companies because it provides a very diverse, competitive workforce. This attracts not only foreign companies here, but also keep our own good local companies here. By doing that, they generate jobs for Singaporeans.”
“The issue the Member raised about whether it is a loophole, whether we can then have cheap engineers coming in and therefore depressing the wages: that is something that we will counter through these adjustments. Over time, we will not be averse to increasing those levels. For example, if we find that our graduates' entry level pay is increasing, we will take corresponding steps to raise the entry level for the Employment Pass as well. The loopholes can also be exploited by employers who then jack up or claim that they are paying the S Pass or the Work Permit holder a certain level of pay to qualify for Employment Pass because it is not subject to the same kind of criteria, and then after that claw back from a different source. That is why we talked earlier on about tightening the whole pass framework so that these abuses will not take place. The measures will be punitive so that companies will be deterred. Page: 1972 The Chairman : Final clarification, Mr Low. Mr Low Thia Khiang : Sir, besides the qualifications and wage level criteria for the Employment Pass, would the Ministry consider putting in place something like a dependency ratio or a ceiling for certain sectors of the economy or certain companies, for Employment Pass applications?”
“It is probably a good thing to start discussing this because it is about how we ought to treat others, and how we should look after the people who are working for us and working with us, living with us. And while nine months, I agree, is not a very long time, I think we expect to see good conversations taking place and, hopefully, that in itself would help employers socialise themselves to get ready. But this is mandated by law. The Chairman : Next, Mr Low. Mr Low Thia Khiang : Sir, I mentioned the issue of Employment Pass holders in my main speech in the Budget debate and I also listened to the Minister of State's answer just now about Employment Pass, which is a different framework from the S Pass or the Worker Permit. When we talk about the foreign worker, we refer to the whole group of foreign workers. I wonder whether the Employment Pass is a loophole which will allow foreign manpower to come in to compete with Singaporeans. Employment Pass jobs are the types of jobs that many Singaporeans can perform and would like to do. There have been complaints in the past that the Government has allowed Employment Pass holders to be engineers and depressed the local engineers' wages. I also wonder whether the Employment Pass framework is within the radar of the Government's economic restructuring framework with the view of increasing productivity to improve the overall economic performance of Singapore. BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin : I would like to thank Mr Low for the question. I would agree that that is one area that we are looking at. Fixing the wage levels to qualify for Employment Pass is critical. For example, like I explained, we raised the Employment Pass entry level to $3,000. Part of that whole change in framework is not just at the entry level but at different ages.”
“Having said that, nonetheless, employers can still send their foreign workers for training and benefit from the CET infrastructure that is put in place. They can also tap on the Productivity and Innovation Credit Scheme when they send their workers for training and that includes foreign workers. The Chairman : Any more clarifications? Asst Prof Eugene Tan. Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member) : Thank you, Sir. My clarification relates to the mandatory day-off for foreign domestic workers. I would like to ask the Minister of State what are the plans to ensure that employers do observe the contractual arrangements. I think it will take some time for employers to internalise the value of a day-off for foreign domestic workers and the values that underline this treatment. But more importantly, in the meantime, we could expect some employers to not observe the contractual arrangements and the mandatory weekly day-off. Page: 1971 BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin : I would like to thank the Member for raising this question, which is why I think we have decided that we will kick this in in 2013. Effectively, we have nine months to get ourselves ready. What we would expect following this announcement are reactions and responses from society and various groups, and we would start raising awareness, to talk this through. The Member is absolutely right. There will be employers, as we can see from the emails and feedback I have shared, who will find it difficult and awkward because for the longest time they have been operating on a certain basis. But it is a mindset shift that we need to see happen.”
“Every company, every employer, they are forced to look into their productivity enhancement. In order to really improve overall productivity, we need to train all the workers in the company or in their establishment. 6.30 pm When I mean all the workers, almost as average, one-third of the population is made up of foreign workers. At every company - big companies, small companies - there are some foreign workers. To enhance productivity, you need to train both local workers as well as foreign workers. Whereas in the WDA grants, we give only grants to the local workers, but the Skill Development Levy, which has been collected for Singaporeans, PRs, casual workers, part-time workers and so on and so forth, including the foreign workers. The employers are paying for their foreign workers' Skill Development Levy but they are not getting any grant. What I am requesting MOM to consider is: in order to achieve the overall productivity improvement throughout the country so that we can adopt the DRC at lower percentages, it is important for us to enhance our productivity. Therefore, we should encourage the employers to train the foreign workers. For any reason we cannot give them the grant, I think it is fair that we better do not collect the SDL for foreign workers. BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin : Mr Chairman, I would like to thank Mr Dhinakaran for the question. I think it is a valid concern. Mr Dhinakaran talked about whether we could fund the training of foreign workers to improve productivity as part of our overall effort. In providing direct training subsidies, our focus should rightfully be on helping our local workforce. Employers who hire foreign workers should ensure that they come with the requisite skills as opposed to coming here and then, skill up.”
“The only change in our policies was that we announced the five percentage point reduction in dependency ratios, which you have responded to. The sectors which are affected by that are well known – F&B, retail, precision engineering, a few sectors like that. That is what you are responding to. I think it was quite a reasonable reading of what you are saying that you are calling for us to rethink some of that tightening. You cannot be calling for us to rethink the tightening of industries that we were not tightening on, right? So, that was a reasonable inference. I would urge you, even if you feel that that is not what you really meant, to be a little more specific and straight about the matter. These are the sectors which I feel because they are low productivity, they should get more workers, which is a change in the position you originally had advocated, and these are the sectors which should get less foreign workers because they are more productive and state how much. It will have to be quite a significant tightening. Page: 1970 The Chairman : Let me move on to the next clarification, Mr Seng Han Thong. Mr Seng Han Thong : Because the term expires next year, may I ask the Minister whether they are allowed to switch LIFE once they have made their choice? Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam : Yes, Sir, they are given a 30-day period to review their decisions. And beyond the 30 days, really to be fair to all members who are members of the LIFE pool, you cannot change your decision. Mr R Dhinakaran (Nominated Member) : Sir, Deputy Prime Minister mentioned that WDA is doing a wonderful job, be it training, in terms of WSQ and CET and many more training all around, for the local workers. The DRC is coming down.”
“So, you are saying some things which are in accord with us now: competitiveness is important, costs are important, but the specifics of what you are saying are ones where you are saying the nice part, the part that people like to hear - why not give a bit more here, give a bit more there - and you are not saying the not-so-nice part. And that is what I feel is not a very cogent position. Mr Low Thia Khiang : Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to suggest that I gain political credit, saying those nice parts but fail to say those not-so-nice parts. He is wrong. First of all, in my speech, I spoke generally, I said some industries we can tighten the dependency ratio, for some industries we can relax the dependency ratio where Singaporeans shun the jobs. He asked specifically which industry I think the DRC should be tightened. I just told him, and he said, "Then you do not say those things that people feel bad because it has to be tightened." But neither in my speech did I mention which industries where the dependency ratio should be relaxed. So neither did I say the good thing or the bad thing. His claim that I want to gain political credit by saying only the good things, I think that probably is his own imagination. The Chairman : Deputy Prime Minister, do you have a final rejoinder? Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam : I can see the difficulty you have. I think it is quite clear that we all know which are the sectors that want more foreign labour. We all know. You can read the newspapers. You can read all the feedback. We all know that the sectors that want more foreign labour are the ones which are affected by our reduction in dependency ratios, a moderate reduction. If you were not concerned by that, then nothing has changed in our policies.”
“You should come out and say which are those industries. In other words, do not just say the positive things in order to gain some credit with groups which you feel you can appeal to, but say the not-so-positive things to the industries that will be heard like what you are proposing. That is what I am saying. This is the way we go about it always. We are quite plain about our objectives. We are quite plain about the pain that has to be endured. We are quite plain about how we will try our best to help, and we make clear that there is no short cut. That is our approach. We are quite open about it. We do not just try to set things on the positive side. That is my advice, that be quite clear about it and state where you think the dependency ratio should be tightened very significantly. There is no playing around with this, very significantly, in order to control overall foreign labour supply. I had made this intervention because I sense that you are changing your position, because you think that there is now some political credit to be gained by talking about the SMEs, like we are all talking about the SMEs and you feel that being as sympathetic as possible to them is a useful line to take. Page: 1969 I really hope you join us instead in recognising that, first, we have to move forward, recognising that it is going to be an arduous task, but we have to proceed with this task and not be late, and not pretend that there are easy solutions for SMEs or for anyone else.”
“The low-wage workers' wages may be increased because of this productivity drive, tightening of foreign workers, but at the same time, they also end up with a higher cost of living. So, what is the trade-off? Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam : Sir, on the first point, I do not want to revisit the issue of whether it is possible to go into some segments of industries, or for the Government, either as an omniscient agent or through intensive consultation, in other words, being receptive to lobbying from businessmen, to be able to decide on who needs more and who needs less, it is a very complex matter. Minister of State Tan described it as central planning, and not far from the truth, a very complex matter. On the second point, where you said that some areas which are skill-intensive, capital-intensive, and so on, they can do with the low dependency ratio, to begin with, they have much lower dependency ratios precisely because they are more capital-intensive, they are more automated, they are more skill-intensive. So they are already so. In fact, then your position − which you should come out with quite openly - is that in those areas of the economy which already have done a good job of becoming less labour-intensive and depending less on foreign workers, you want them to go even further. But by the way, it will have to be much, much further because, to explain to you the arithmetic again, the least productive sectors are the ones that are leading to a very large increase in foreign workers. A very large increase. The rest are flat or even declining. To offset that very large increase, you need to have a very significant tightening of dependency ratios in what you feel are non-meritorious industries, in other words, highly productive.”
“But at the broad level, when you look at it, for instance, the banking industry and some other industries which possibly more Singaporeans would want to do the job and work in the industry, I think we can tighten the dependency ratio. Even the Minister's own example, for instance, of the aerospace industry which, on one end, you probably need more high skilled labour, on the other end, you probably need more foreign workers as it is labour intensive. For the part of industry which we are producing enough skilled workers or engineers to do the work, that is the part where you can tighten the dependency ratio. That is one example. And we can look at different specific industries. Page: 1968 Sir, the next issue he is talking about is why not we agree on the current measure of the Government, rather than talking about dependency ratio in the future. My concern is not only the future. My concern is also the push that you are making now by setting a target for dependency ratio and tightening it and, in the process, what will happen to the SMEs? Many of them may not be able to make it and there will be a lot of fall outs. I am also concerned with the speed of tightening. Of course, I am not saying that we should not do that. I agree that we should move towards the direction of tightening the supply of foreign labour and improved productivity. But at the rate that we are looking at, and for certain industries, I am concerned. Yes, if they are low-productivity industries, you want to push it up, but at the same time, you cannot do it suddenly. Because, eventually, we will end up with high cost of living.”
“I have explained, and the Minister of State Tan has explained, productivity is well below international standards. We know it is going to be quite a difficult path, a very difficult transition, that we have to make to help them upgrade. We are very well below the standards that we would like to see and which I am sure you would like to see so that our local workers can be paid better through higher productivity operations. So, I think we should focus on that, rather than pose an issue now which is slightly either misleading or academic. Let us assume it is academic. I am trying to be very generous here. Why do we not wait for that day to come when "you" ended up in a situation where you cannot get any more productivity improvements, which I do not think it will come by the way because the history of all developed countries is that there is a continuous improvement in productivity. That is the first point. Secondly, it would be useful, since you take this position, to let us think about which industries you have in mind that should in fact see a reduced dependency ratio. And I mean this quite seriously precisely because of what has been said before that the industries with low productivity are the ones demanding a lot more foreign workers. In order to achieve the overall target of a slowdown of the foreign workforce inflows, you need to be very draconian on the other industries. You get what I mean? You will have to be very draconian about the industries. So, which are these industries where you would like to impose much more stringent dependency ratios? Mr Low Thia Khiang : Mr Chairman, Sir, I have not gone into specific industries because, as what I have said, it is a complex issue.”
“That was another thought I had in mind. Secondly, as what I have explained in this House before, all we have said in the past was basically that you are letting in too many foreign workers who have been in competition with Singaporean workers, and there are jobs that Singaporeans can do that are taken away by the foreign workers. That is our complaint. We have not said that we do not need foreign workers in Singapore to complement our workers. We did not say that before. So I do not think we have changed any position at all. Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam : One advantage of me being able to sit down while Minister of State Tan was speaking is that I was able to do a quick check on my PDA, and I managed to pull out your manifesto, and this is what it said, "A liberal foreign labour policy has also come at the price of lagging productivity, forcing low-wage workers to depend on government handouts to subsist." It also said that "Singapore should reduce its over-reliance on foreign workers through increased automation and productivity improvements of our local workers." I think that is a very sensible position − that we should basically reduce foreign worker dependency through increased automation, every form of efficiency and upgrading. Why not concentrate on that task and admit that that is the key task, rather than talk of a situation where eventually you may come to a point where you do not have any more scope of productivity improvements? Can we agree that we are very far from that point? Which sectors are you talking about that you feel should get a more liberal treatment? I can imagine which ones you are thinking about because these are the ones which asked for more foreign labour – F&B, retail, construction.”
“Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam : Sir, to express that simply, did the Member mean that industries which he feels have low productivity should basically get more foreign workers? Mr Low Thia Khiang : What I meant is that we tighten it slowly rather than tighten it at one go. Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam : I am glad you said that, because that is, in fact, exactly what we are trying to do. Careful, calibrated tightening in the industries which have the lowest productivity and the highest dependency ratios. That is really the problem we face. 6.15 pm Ultimately, as the Minister of State Tan Chuan-Jin says, we have to make a transformation in productivity across the board. Although you have just said we should tighten gradually, what you were earlier saying was that we should be a little more liberal in those industries. This view, as I explained earlier, is quite different from the view you had taken earlier on, both in your manifesto as well as in your earlier speeches, where you had, in fact, criticised us for letting in foreign workers in a way that basically dampened productivity and held Singaporean workers' wages down. I have explained previously why I think you were over-simplifying and how, in fact, the dynamic created in our economy through our policy has led to an uplifting of wages. But I am just intrigued at your present position, because it is quite different from what you have stated before. Page: 1967 Mr Low Thia Khiang : Sir, two points of clarification. First of all, even if you try to increase the level of productivity of all the industries, there will come a point where certain industries' productivity will not be able to increase to whichever level that you wish it to be. So, those industries would probably need more foreign workers to supplement.”
“Sometimes, companies may not know where to find the PMEs. Because we have contact with the PMEs and the workers, we are able to facilitate that matching and we hope that this will bear positive fruits. Page: 1966 The Chairman : The Deputy Prime Minister has the floor now. Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam : Mr Chairman, if you permit me, I just wanted to clarify with Mr Low his position. First, once again, let me say I am glad that the Member has come to the view that our policy on foreign workers has to keep a very sharp eye on the issues of competitiveness and cost. These are relevant concerns. The Minister of State Tan Chuan-Jin has given our perspective: what we feel we really need to focus on as the long-term solution to this problem of dependence on foreign labour and, at the same, weighing it against competitiveness and cost. But I am intrigued by the Member's position. First, I am glad that the Member agrees with us that competitiveness and costs are serious issues, and that we have to think through the balance very carefully. But I am intrigued by the Member's position on how we should go about deciding which industries should have more foreign labour and which less. He mentioned looking at productivity. What does he mean by that? Does the Member mean that industries with lower productivity should receive foreign labour? Mr Low Thia Khiang : Clarification, Sir. What I was saying was that depending on the productivity level of the industry and how much more they can increase the level of productivity. Rather than forcing all the way up by setting a certain productivity target which they cannot achieve. Then they will experience a fall-out or the whole industry might be wiped out.”
“I think the issue is that as we look at increasing the wages of our low-wage workers, as I mentioned, as a society, we need to realise that there is a correct price that has to be paid for these services, and there are Singaporeans providing those services. That, invariably, will be a cost that all Singaporeans need to bear. Mr Zainudin Nordin : Sir, clarification. The Minister of State talked about the Employment Pass changes that will take place in a comparison of apple-to-apple so that we do not disadvantage our junior graduates compared to a foreign professional. I would also like to ask the Ministry to consider if the Employment Pass applicant or the company that is applying for the Employment Pass, every single time that they apply for an Employment Pass, when the gap is really identified and exists, that we work towards filling up those gaps, not just allowing those to continue to exist by working towards filling up those gaps and, hopefully, over time, those gaps will become smaller and smaller, and the dependency will become lesser. BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin : I thank the Member for the suggestion. In fact, this is exactly something that we need to do. As I had highlighted in my earlier speech, WDA and e2i are making efforts to better match PMEs to jobs, whether fresh PMEs or PMEs who are already in the market looking for jobs, we also know employers are also looking for workers. That effort will go a long way. Today, some PMEs have given us feedback that they find it difficult. But a lot of it is finding where the gaps are and to see whether we can match them. This is where, in a sense, as the middleman, we provide not just training opportunities but we are now moving into the space of trying to facilitate employment. This can go quite a long way.”
“Right now, we do fully acknowledge there are not just anecdotal instances but in various industries we hear stories of perhaps discriminatory practices. This is something that we are turning the spotlight on. We are following up on feedback from Singaporeans. As we have highlighted earlier, when TAFEP meets up with some of these companies, all of them have cooperated quite significantly and we are encouraged by the feedback so far. So let us let this system unfold, both in terms of the restructuring of the Employment Pass framework as well as TAFEP measures. We believe that as we focus on this emphasis, we would begin to see a movement on this front. Page: 1965 The Chairman : There are many Members who want to seek clarifications. I will come to you. I have seen your hand. Keep your clarifications short. Mr Ang Hin Kee. Mr Ang Hin Kee : Sir, can I clarify with Minister of State on Mr Low's concern. Will MOM be increasing your Budget to pay for higher wages for cleaners if those who are consuming their services and those who are concerned about their welfare are not doing so? In short, Mr Low suggested that if the cost gets passed on to consumers and consumers are not paying for them, then, who else would be paying for these services? Mr Low's contention is that the Government should be paying for the services, for the higher wages of cleaners, that we consume their services and we are concerned about their welfare, but we are passing the costs on to the Government to pay for them. BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin : For the cleaners working in MOM, as their wages increase, MOM will pick up the tab to pay and we will be very happy to do so, both for our cleaners and our security guards.”
“The key thing is that even as the Employment Pass holders come in, what they do is that they create a very dynamic and attractive labour environment where companies see that it makes sense to invest here. Because companies come here, they set up their headquarters here. Because it is a diverse workforce, it makes sense to have regional headquarters here, and when these companies set up shop here, they create jobs directly for Singaporeans and also indirectly because of all the supporting industries that operate in order to support these companies that are here. So they create jobs. That is how the system works. The second part of the question is about how then do we make sure that companies give priority to local PMEs who are equally qualified. The adjustment to the salary level will make a difference so that when companies calculate the costs involved, they would have to calculate the salary levels that are expected for a particular PME coming in from abroad because he needs to qualify at that level. For many of these foreign talents who come here, there are also other allowances that need to be put in place in their remuneration packages, for example, housing, other allowances and so on. All these things have to be factored in and companies will have to decide. The approach that we are taking is highlighted through the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) which is basically to encourage positive work spaces, for companies to be much more aware of their hiring practices, to make sure that, at all times, we need to have a core of Singaporeans here because Singaporeans remain here. The EP holders will come and go. It is in the companies' interest to have a core group of Singaporeans within their employment. This is something we want to encourage.”
“As I highlighted earlier, the Work Pass framework basically operates on a system of DRCs and also levies as a pricing mechanism to manage the numbers. The Employment Pass framework operates slightly differently, as we specify the qualifying salaries. We have restructured it quite significantly last year. Essentially, we have entry level at $3,000, but it does not remain there. This level of salary will move with age, meaning that a PME from another country coming in, say, at 40 or 45 years, will not be operating at $3,000. We would expect, at the equivalent level for a particular industry, his salary would have to be much higher. That is a fundamental change to the Employment Pass framework. This would have an impact. In the past, when we did not have this, we could end up having engineers coming in from the Philippines who are in their 40s, very experienced, but yet earning $3,000, $3,100, $3,200. That actually sets our local PMEs at that same equivalent age at a disadvantage. This was a very fundamental change. Secondly, we have also tightened quite considerably the qualifications criteria, meaning that for the Employment Pass level, we do want people to come in who will complement our workforce. We all recognise that we do need an open and diverse workforce, not just at the Work Permit and S Pass level, but at the Employment Pass level as well. There are skill sets that they bring to bear. There are competencies which we are either short of or sometimes do not have the same level of maturity in that area or, in some cases, to supplement because we do need the numbers.”
“The Chairman : Mr Heng, do you have a clarification? Mr Heng Chee How : Mr Chairman, Sir, my clarification is that in the earlier clarification by Mr Low, he attributed a set of comments to me. I just wish to clarify that I did not make those comments. Mdm Foo Mee Har : Sir, I wish to thank the Minister of State for giving a very comprehensive response to the extensive investment the Government is putting into the training and development of PMEs in Singapore. That is clearly an area that I think we are doing a lot. I would like to seek a clarification: under our current Employment Pass (EP) system − which is unlike the work permit system where there are quotas and levies – it is basically working on a system where you just need a qualifying salary and the salary minimum is at $3,000 and the relevant qualifications, and there would be plenty of these people in the world who would qualify for that. How do we make sure that even as we absolutely need to welcome foreign talent, professionals to complement our local workforce, how can we be sure that Singaporeans with the right skills are first given the consideration for these best jobs? Also if there are gaps, how do we make sure under our current system that employers take proactive steps to train and develop Singaporeans for those jobs? Page: 1964 BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin : Sir, I would like to thank the Member for the question. Largely, there are two parts to this question. The first I will address is on the structure of our workforce. We have basically the Work Permit and the S Pass which forms the rank-and-file of the workforce. Then, we have Employment Pass, which is treated slightly differently.”