Ng Eng Hen
Singapore
“I think we try to keep this virtuous state of affairs as long as we can to make sure that we can invest steadily. Year-to-year fluctuations would occur, whether it is economic, not so much in COVID-19, but remember the Global Financial Crisis? Everybody needs to take a haircut. If you have to take a haircut, you have to take a haircut.”
“Mr Chairman, as the World around us becomes more unpredictable and changes, the more we need to keep the strongest commitment to strengthen our own defences and, if needed, we must be willing to do more. Singapore celebrates 60 years of Independence this year.”
“MINDEF will continue to work with partners to encourage Singaporeans to raise their digital literacy, develop and maintain good cybersecurity habits, protect sensitive data and guard against scams, fake news and disinformation so as to make the digital domain a safer and more secure space.”
“The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) conducts regular mobilisation exercises (MOBEX) of our National Service (NS) forces. In a silent mobilisation, NSmen are notified through their personal contact numbers. Open mobilisations include the broadcast of unit code-words through mass media.”
“In 2020, the Ministry of Defence replied to a Parliamentary Question on this matter that the relocation of Paya Lebar Air Base (PLAB) would likely occur around 2030 or beyond, after Changi Air Base and Tengah Air Base have been expanded to house the existing assets at PLAB.”
“When incidents or near-misses happen, as it did where one Hunter armoured fighting vehicle rear-ended another during Exercise Wallaby in Australia, thorough investigations are conducted and lessons learnt shared across the units.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,266 lines we hold for Ng Eng Hen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 44 of 46.
“We spend $37 million to build one ITE institution and $36.8 million to build one JC. MPs know because they have seen it with their own eyes that we do not shortchange weaker students, when it comes to facilities! In fact, equipment donated by industry, such as in the case of Balestier ITE, can come up to $10 million more. Ah, but you say, JC students get better and therefore more expensive teaching. Well, let us look at the figures. The recurrent operating cost for JC is $11 million and $7,879 per student per year. For ITE, $10.5 million and $8,030 per student per year. The ITE student is worth 102% compared to the JC student in terms of spending. And for both JC and ITE students, Government charges for their education a `princely' sum of $25 a month. Let me say that MOE does not a priori provide educational programmes to different aptitudes based on equivalent spending. In other words, we do not start by saying that this is the sum, we will spend the same amount for all groups. That would be unenlightened. Our guiding principle has and will be, enable each student according to his aptitude to realise his potential. And for an ITE student to have 80% employability at a starting salary of $1,300 is something we can be proud of. Finally, we will continue to do so. Our educational system, though streamed and segmented by aptitude and pedagogy, is nonetheless interconnected. In other words, changes at any point will have an impact throughout the system. NMP Jennifer Lee asked another intelligent question - and Mr Iswaran also repeated it - if changes are to be effected, why did we choose to start after the student has had about 6-8 years in our current system? Our response is a practical one. It is easier to do and that is why we chose to work at the `product'.”
“Mathematically, it means that if you closed your eyes and plucked any student in any school in Singapore and transported him to an equivalent grade anywhere else in the world, even if the student was 91st out of 100 positions, he or she would be above average in that system. Is it any wonder that parents come back who have brought these students overseas and said how their children `blossomed' when they went overseas? So, contrary to what was implied, we have enabled the bottom 90% to be the best that they can be. We added to the stress because now one in every four students comes within striking distance of a local university education. And because we have grounded them so well in fundamentals, about 40 to 50% of each cohort get a local or overseas university degree finally. 40% get a diploma and another 25% ITE certification, and this latter group with above 80% employability, even in this recession. "Who is looking into the educational needs of the bottom 90%?", NMP Jennifer Lee asked yesterday. The Government has for the last 20 years, thank you. Second, we do. Having raised the water level across our nation, are we now poised to spend inappropriate resources only on the more able - cries of elitism? Not so. Minister Teo, because of these changes, wanted to convince ourselves at MOE that we are expending appropriate resources to those with lesser academic aptitude. He asked for comparable figures of spending between JC and ITE students, ie, different ends of the spectrum in terms of academic ability of similar ages. We did not quite know what the results would be, but the results are illuminating and indeed gratifying. Let me share them with you. First, developmental cost. Both ITE and JC institutions cater to similar sized intakes, about 1,500 students.”
“So, if I were asked the question, who benefited the most from the educational efforts in the last 20 years, I can objectively assert that it was the masses and not the academically brightest. Because, as Members themselves have said that in most countries, even in the USA, the rich and able are able to take care of themselves. Streaming of aptitude and resources occurs spontaneously and to the disadvantage of the less able and less well off. A strong central system is inherently stacked against the elite because it enables the rest to catch up. This is exactly what happened in Singapore. In 1980, only 5% of each birth cohort went to university. Now, if you were in families of the 5%, why would you want it changed? When others are less able, with less access and untutored, there would be less competition and, yes, as many Members have mentioned it, less stress. Indeed, this occurs in the States even now. By gravitational affinity, students from the more resourced families congregate at specific schools followed by better teachers. They therefore do better. But, in Singapore, we do not send all our best teachers to only RI and RGS. We spread them out. These systematic changes opened up access to all and sundry. As I said, it is school proof - any school will get you there if you have the aptitude. In 1999, the International Mathematics and Science Competitions conducted a study and chose our students at random. And as we have mentioned, our students scored very highly. In Mathematics, 93% scored above the median. In Science, 80%. Let me try to present this in mathematical terms.”
“Those that have succeded are like Singapore, Ireland and Denmark, island states or countries surrounded by competitors with greater hinterlands and resources. To survive, we had to get the best, not from some but all our people. In contrast, large countries with better resources have had less strategic reasons to enable the masses to `level up' in education. Do not get me wrong. All countries want it but the need to achieve that egalitarian goal is less urgent for these countries. So, like Senior Parliamentary Secretary Koo Tsai Kee recounted, Bush Snr. promised reforms but like so many before and indeed after him, failed to deliver. Politically, it is a card they play because people keep hoping that finally someone will deliver. And even if you do not, because so many have previously failed, people forget. So, when previous MPs declared that we should also pay attention to the majority, I was bemused because it seems, in Singapore, even when you have succeeded magnificently, people also forget. Sir, for the last 20 years or so, since a similar motion on educational reform standing in the name of the then Deputy Prime Minister Goh Keng Swee was accepted, we have been doing just that - paying attention to the masses, not those on the top. Let me elaborate. Prior to those educational reforms, only one of two students completed secondary school education. Even now, the adverse consequences are felt. This is the group of 400,000 or so that NMP Jennifer Lee alluded to. But we broke the back of that problem, and now more than 90% finish secondary education. The problem of masses of uneducated will not be repeated.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am heartened that all Members who have spoken thus far have supported the motion and the recommendations of the JC/Upper Secondary Education Review Committee. However, not a few have said that these changes were good and worthy of support and implementation should be extended to the majority. Yesterday, MP Amy Khor and NMP Dr Jennifer Lee have called these educational changes to be extended to more, so that more can benefit. And, today, Mr Iswaran echoes this call. Intended or not, these points raised by speakers before me may have given the wrong impression that MOE would be neglecting the majority, as these measures largely benefit the top 10% who, in Dr Jennifer Lee's words, "are more than able to fend for themselves''. Sir, I would like to address this concern. Implicit in their comments that MOE may be neglecting the majority are two assumptions, both which are debatable. One is that parity of attention is achieved through the provision of similar programmes; and, two, better treatment is accorded to the top echelons of our students at the expense of the weaker students. Sir, let me state in umabiguous terms as clearly and succinctly as I can - when it comes to paying heed to the educational opportunities for the masses, especially the weaker students, we have, we do, we will continue to do so. Let me substantiate my assertions. First, we have. Educational reforms for the masses, as hon. Members Cedric Foo and Wee Siew Kim have pointed out, require enormous will and courage and effects take, in political time-scales, well, forever, which is why beyond the political dimensions, countries which had the temerity and succeeded in educational reforms have done so because of added strategic reasons.”
“Yes. MAID LEVIES (Tax rebates for singles) 6. Ms Braema Mathiaparanam asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is his Ministry's rationale for excluding singles, who have maids in their employment, from enjoying tax rebates on maid levies; and (b) whether his Ministry will consider reviewing this policy to help singles who employ maids to look after their elderly or siblings. The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lim Hng Kiang) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, Sir, foreign maid levy tax relief has the specific objective of encouraging women to continue working after marriage. The relief is hence not available to singles. The Government does help singles who look after their parents. All taxpayers, regardless of whether they are married or single, can claim parent relief if they are taking care of their parents. The relief is $5,000 if the child is staying with his parent or $3,500 if otherwise. The Government also recognises the additional burden on children taking care of handicapped or bedridden parents. As announced in the Budget Statement 2002, an additional handicapped parent relief of $3,000, on top of the existing parent relief, will be introduced with effect from Year of Assessment 2003. As for taxpayers who take care of their handicapped siblings, they can claim $3,500 handicapped sibling relief regardless of their marital status.”
“Objectively, the Ministry has done a lot. It tried to promote a number of local domestic companies. Members would have read in the newspapers which we have promoted for them to portray local domestic companies who do cleaning, laundry and childcare. But the economic reality is that it is a wage problem. Yes, we can hire someone for a much cheaper wage and it is a convenience factor. Unless and until we reduce that wage disparity, it is an uphill climb. But until we reach there, we will continue to stimulate and provide alternatives. But the families and Singaporeans at the ground will choose, and they will choose based on economic concerns and economic planning norms. I agree with Mdm Halimah that there is a wage disparity which is hard to address, except through other means.”
“Sir, as what the NMP has said, we will consider it.”
“Sir, actually, I do not know what he asked. It has something to do with every Singaporean matters. I am trying to see the connection. It is a disingenuous question. I am trying to see the connection between what the levy has to do with every Singaporean matters. Yes, it is difficult to ration out a resource - foreign domestic workers. Yes, we impose a levy because it is a good tool to moderate demand. Is it the best way to do it? Are there other options that we have considered? Yes. Do we think that they are workable? No. Can we then help Singaporeans who need to pay the levy and who want a foreign domestic worker? Yes, we do. We have waiver of levies built into the tax system. Can we do without it? I do not think so. I think we still need it to moderate the demand. We cannot manage at the level of each individual household, who needs and who does not. I think this will continue to stay. But as I said, I am in no hurry to review. The moratorium has already been set, and I do not think Members would want my Ministry to hurry to review this.”
“Sir, that is an intelligent question. The answer is no one knows, because we are at the front edge. No country has a large proportion of foreign workers as Singapore does. We are second only to Luxembourg, and I assure you that the character of the proportion of foreign workers in Luxembourg is quite different from what we have in Singapore. We are testing the norms and we are pushing the envelope because we are at the front edge. When our neighbouring countries decided that they had a problem with foreign workers, there was hell to pay. Do we know when we will reach breaking point? We do not. Have we crossed it? I do not know. It has just been increasing. So, we have 28%, based on our local population of foreign workers. Let me just say this. When we do know, I think it will be quite late and too late.”
“Sir, the advice sought from me was premised on the fact that the levy will be increased. I never said that the levy will be increased. I said that we will review it. So, I would not give advice when it is not needed yet. Sir, I was accused of being disingenuous about not being able to prescribe criteria since this Government is so good at prescribing. I do not think it is a question of whether we can devise a series of formulae and prescriptions. But just think what the craft of that policy would lead society to. Do we really want to run a system and judge each family based on need? Picture, if you will, the desk at my Ministry and a line of families bringing with them their parents and children to assert, to emphasise, to prove that their need is greater than the person behind them. Do you really want a society to go along that line? I do not.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if the NCMP would have gone through the papers for the last few months, he could not have but seen a number of abuses that we have talked about in this House. Let us say that we have 140,000 foreign domestic workers. Even if you take 1% of households that, for some reason or other, abuse their maids, we are talking about 1,400 maids. Over and above this, there will be repercussions on our social fabric. We cannot run away from the fact that the people are of different origins, different cultural backgrounds, the problems that they have in assimilation and the effect and distortion it creates in our own society. We do not want to make it harder for families to continue with their lives as it is. But we will have to judiciously balance this with other concerns.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, to decide between one family and another based on need is an extremely difficult exercise and for society, I would say an invidious one. How would I judge, for example, whether a family with a diabetic mother of a blood sugar of 400 requires less of a foreign domestic worker versus another family who has three children and is making ends meet? Do I then train my officers to cater to each individual, assessing their needs? And upon pronouncement, would I have one happy family versus the other 10 families who have applied based on need who go away angry at the system? I think, based on a quota system, and to decide whether one family gets a foreign domestic worker based on another is an extremely difficult exercise. The levy is not a perfect solution. Other countries have tried other means. We will explore these means but I think it will be hard to run away from the conclusion or to arrive at the wrong conclusion that the levies do not work. The levies do moderate demand. But we will take into account these considerations and also the median household income over the last few years as well as the numbers that are in and what numbers we can fix socially which we can accept before arriving at a decision.”
“I agree with the hon. Member that the economic conditions are uncertain. But the other arm of the planning parameter was the rate of increase in the number of foreign domestic workers and despite the moratorium that has increased out of proportion to the households. As I have said, the moratorium continues to stand and when we do review the levy, we will take into consideration these factors and decide then whether there should be an increase of the levy or not.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, to give that assurance means that you will have to answer a number of needs. I think we would have painted ourselves in a corner if we had worked on that principle. Yes, it is difficult to raise families when you want to juggle that with your work commitments. Yes, it is also more expensive to hire local help. But we have to balance this with the increasing number of foreign domestic workers that we have already seen. From the moratorium last time, the number of maids has increased by about 20%, so much so that one in eight households currently have a foreign domestic worker. There are social repercussions. What we can do is to continue to provide and expand domestic service as affordable alternatives for local households. For example, the CDCs, in particular, the Southeast CDC has piloted training emplacement programmes for various domestic services. These include cleaning, laundry, child care or eldercare. In line with these efforts, we will need to maintain a FDW levy at an appropriate level to moderate household demand for FDWs. But whether this would satisfy the majority of households, and whether this would be an attractive option remains to be seen and is relative. But we will continue to expand these efforts so that there are these alternatives.”
“The buyer's lawyer should ensure that the title to the flat is passed to their client free from prior encumbrance and the seller's lawyer should also ensure that their client returns the CPF as otherwise the sale could be jeopardised, should CPF invoke its power of sale. In the unlikely event that the above mechanisms fail and the CPF monies secured by the CPF charge are not paid, the CPF Board will still seek the assistance of HDB, the mortgagees and the parties' lawyers to recover the CPF monies from the sellers. With due diligence from all parties involved, this power will rarely be invoked and, indeed, only as a last resort, such as instances when there is evidence of collusion between the buyers or sellers, will CPF Board proceed to sell the flat to recover the seller's CPF money that is secured by the charge. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Ng Eng Hen]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“We will also create additional e-channels for e-submissions which include the use of major kiosk service providers. The AXS employer returns, for example, currently utilises 150 kiosks for goods island wide. They can also have access to sites in CDCs and CCCs as well as, he mentioned, GIRO. And, yes, there are plans to also start e-lobbies, or e-terminals within the lobbies at CPF branches. We will roll out special training plans for these small employers, including using the Government IT Literacy Programme to co-fund part of the enabling process. Let me now touch on the point brought up by Dr Ong where he mentioned that this amendment is unfair against the seller. I would like to remind him that this provision already exists for private properties. It is no different from that of private properties. The only difference is that now we create an automatic charge. So the solution really is that you still need to enable the CPF Board to acquire the properties with the power of sale. Because in certain acts of collusion between buyer and seller, you need the Act. The solution to prevent the CPF Board exercising the power of sale is to ensure that there is due diligence. We will make arrangements, in the event that HDB is the intermediary and where HDB is appointed as a solicitor for either buyer or seller of the flat to ensure that the CPF funds have been returned. In addition, banks and lawyers will be informed of the CPF charge and the power of sale that comes with it so that they will do their diligence. They will conduct search at the CPF Board and the existence of the CPF charge on the HDB flat. It will be in the interest of the banks to ensure that the CPF charge is this charge from the sale of the flat so that there is no encumbrance on the flat.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Yeo and Dr Ong for their comments. Let me reply specifically to some of their points. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang has advised the public at large to exercise prudence in making housing plans. And we reiterate this call for home buyers to acquire homes within their financial means. He asked what CPF Board and Government can do to educate Singaporeans to better plan their finances, including consumption and investment in housing. I would like to remind the House and the public that this is exactly what the imposition of the valuation limit, in terms of CPF withdrawal limit, seeks to do. It will start at 150% and slowly move over the next five years to 120%. Similarly, the cash payments will increase from 0% to 10%. Mr Yeo also talked about the CPF default rate and e-submissions, in particular, he mentioned that it was 0.6% in April-June up to 0.8% in January-March. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think these are quite highly commendable figures. We have less than 1% of employers defaulting. Statistically, it is not different. There is a quirk that in the month of February, there seems to be a slight blip, perhaps related to the Chinese New Year season. But, yes, we will do our utmost to reduce the default rate further. Our CPF Board does contact employers fairly quick after they have gone beyond a two-week limit. He also asked about small and medium enterprises and how we can help them to enable them to submit CPF submissions electronically. Yes, the Ministry will roll out the plan. Currently, about less than 10% do so. We will extend the same programmes that we do for large employers to smaller employers, including subsidising some of their transmission fees electronically.”
“From 1st January 2003, these employers are encouraged to adjust the employees' remuneration package accordingly. Other amendments This Bill also introduces other amendments to enhance the administration and operation by the CPF Board. These include: Clause 2 to enable CPF Board to authorise any 2 of its officers to sign documents under seal, instead of restricting it to only the General Manager and Deputy General Managers; Clause 3 to change the title of the General Manager and the Deputy General Manager in the CPF Act to chief executive officer and the deputy chief executive officers accordingly; Clause 8 to amend section 24 of the Act to clarify that monies in any fixed deposit account maintained by a member with a bank under the CPF Investment Scheme or CPF Minimum Sum are protected; and Clause 9 repeals and re-enacts section 66 to clarify that the section also applies to the Board's insurance funds, and removes the need to gazette authorised officers who may be required to give evidence in court so long as an officer is duly authorised by the Board. Conclusion In conclusion, Mr Speaker Sir, the amendments proposed in the Bill will enable the return of CPF savings upon sale of HDB flats which were purchased with bank-originated loans; facilitate electronic submission and payment of CPF by all companies; introduce flexibility on the interval of CPF withdrawals after the age of 55; and limit the amount of voluntary CPF contributions. The amendments are in line with the overall objectives of the CPF system. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Although there is a need to encourage Singaporeans to save for retirement, CPF savings beyond a certain limit should not be allowed to become a tax shelter. Voluntary CPF contributions beyond the tax exemption limit currently enjoy a less explicit tax benefit, which is the acronym TEE, ie, Taxable at contribution, Exempt during accumulation and Exempt on withdrawal. Clause 4, therefore, amends section 13B of the CPF Act to limit CPF contributions made by a Singapore citizen or permanent resident, including voluntary contributions paid by their employers, to the mandatory contribution amount, or the sum of $28,800 in any year, whichever is the higher. The amount of $28,800 is derived from the 40% CPF contribution rate of a $6,000 monthly salary. This policy change affirms the fundamental objective of CPF, which is to provide for basic retirement needs. Singaporeans and permanent residents who wish to save more for retirement may instead contribute to the Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS) which provides tax deferral benefits for voluntary contributions up to 15% of one's income, subject to a salary ceiling of $6,000. Clause 4 of the Bill also amends section 13B to disallow voluntary CPF contributions by any person who is not a citizen or permanent resident of Singapore. Such foreigners already enjoy higher SRS relief of 35% of income, as compared to 15% for Singapore citizens and permanent residents. With this 35% benefit in deferred tax plus 50% exemption on tax at withdrawal offered by SRS, foreigners already have a tax-advantage vehicle to save for retirement. We understand that some employers currently contribute CPF voluntarily for their foreign employees working in Singapore.”
“To encourage all employers to submit and pay CPF contributions electronically, clause 10 of the Bill enables the CPF Board to prescribe regulations to implement the payment, collection and refund of contributions through electronic means and empower the Minister to prescribe such fees and charges that may be levied for manual submissions. For a start, the CPF Board will impose processing fees on those larger companies which continue to utilise the manual mode after 1st April 2003. This is justifiable as the Board has to incur greater cost to process manual submissions and payments. The Board will monitor the progress of large employers going into e-modes before imposing the processing fee on smaller employers. Even then, we will give smaller employers sufficient time and assistance to adjust to these changes. The CPF Board will also continue to explore and develop means to make e-submission and payment of CPF more convenient and easier for all employers. Withdrawal of CPF after age 55 Currently, CPF members aged 55 years or older can withdraw their CPF savings at 3-year intervals after setting aside the required Minimum Sum. CPF members who have not set aside the Minimum Sum can withdraw half of their savings at 3-year intervals, with the other half being used to top-up the Minimum Sum shortfall. With greater operational efficiency, the Board is able to shorten the interval period for withdrawals. Clause 5 of the Bill, therefore, amends section 15(3) to allow withdrawals at 1-year intervals or such other interval as the Minister may direct. Voluntary Contributions Sir, preferential tax treatment is currently given to compulsory CPF contributions from employer and employees, including voluntary contributions from the self-employed.”
“With the automatic charge, there exists the possibility that the need to refund CPF savings used by the seller could be overlooked during the transactions of HDB flats, especially when HDB is no longer an active intermediary in flats purchased with bank loans. However, with due diligence by the parties' lawyers to ensure that the title of the flat is passed on to the buyers free from all encumbrances, including the return of the sellers' CPF, there will be no need for CPF Board to exercise the power of sale which, in any event, will be used only as a last resort. For HDB flats purchased with bank-originated loans, the priority ranking of the CPF charge is as listed in the circulated Table (Cols. 1479-1480), and I will leave it to Members to peruse this. Essentially, the bank has the first claim, and the CPF follows. Table 1 - Priority of claim Implementation of Electronic Submission and Payment of CPF Contributions by Large Employers Sir, let me move on to implementation of electronic submission and payment of CPF contributions by large employers. Employers can currently submit CPF contributions and payments manually or electronically and the CPF Board does not impose any processing fee. All public sector employers pay CPF through electronic means. The corresponding figure for larger private sector employers, ie, those with 100 or more employees, is 94%. Despite the obvious savings through electronic submission and CPF Board's promotional efforts, a remnant 6% of larger private employers continue to submit and pay CPF contributions manually.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill introduces four main changes to the existing CPF Act, namely, to accommodate bank-originated loans for HDB flats; facilitate e-submission for CPF submissions and payments; shorten the interval for CPF withdrawals after age 55 and provide a cap on voluntary CPF contributions. Changes arising from Bank-Originated Loans for HDB Flats Sir, in July this year, the Government announced that the Housing and Development Board (HDB) would transfer HDB market rate loans to the banks from 1st January 2003. This Bill addresses changes that impact CPF savings arising from this move. Currently, when HDB grants mortgage loans, it has first priority or charge over sale proceeds from such flats. The CPF Board has second charge if CPF savings have been used to make payment towards the purchase of the flat. This means that when the flat is sold, HDB will first deduct the amount owed to it, before transferring any balance back to the member's CPF account. From 1st January 2003, the lending banks will have first charge when they grant loans to HDB flat buyers. To secure the refund of monies due to CPF, the CPF Board would have to lodge a charge with the Registrar of Titles for each HDB flat purchased with bank-originated loans. However, this would lead to higher cost and longer processing time for the release of members' CPF savings for the purchase of flats. To avoid these problems, clause 7 of the Bill inserts a new section 21B to create an automatic charge on an HDB flat in favour of CPF Board when a member withdraws CPF savings to purchase or upgrade the HDB flat. It also confers on the CPF Board the power of sale to recover the CPF savings used for the flat, as is the case for private properties.”
“I would take offence to that statement, Mr Speaker. I graduated from a local university. I have been told I am quite successful and I do quite well.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I rephrase the question back to the hon. Member? Is he suggesting that our students have not succeeded?”
“Sir, if helping to prepare them well and do excellently in our Ivy League colleges is not considered analytical, or to have the ability to stand on par with the top institutions in the world, then I would concede the point.”
“We have reached a stage where there are no easy answers and we will have to plot our future together. In that spirit, Sir, I support the motion.”
“Chin Tet Yung pointed out yesterday that what was enough for him appears inadequate for others, something which he and I find inexplicable. Take the example quoted by our MPs of the polytechnic student who is able to get his degree overseas in a shorter time but feels aggrieved towards Singapore because he cannot enter public universities. Thankfully, they are in the minority. A lot of polytechnic alumni do recognise the academic and rigorous education they receive at the polytechnic, help them get a degree and remain committed to Singapore. How then do we progress having succeeded so far? Firstly, focus on the fundamentals that have served us well and let us not get distracted. Secondly, accommodate diversity. Yes, we have reached a point where we should and must respond to individual needs and talents. Thirdly, involve partners in the education process. Mr Ahmad Khalis and Mr Hawazi alluded to COMPASS where schools, parents and communities synergise their efforts and inputs to plot direction and pace. I agree with him that this process of engagement is a winning formula and we could do more of it. Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not intend at the outset to answer specific queries about the Ministry of Education, or issues raised about education. I do not think that this debate will end here. Some of the older parliamentarians said they asked the same questions 15-20 years ago and we are asking them now. And I suspect 15-20 years hence, they will be asking the same questions in this House. But let us see the debate as a positive one. This engagement in the process where we contribute to the building of our educational institutions is in the very spirit that the motion calls for, which is a process of engagement, stakeholdership and ownership.”
“In my recent trips, the Deans of the top USA universities said this, "There is only one thing wrong with the Singapore students. We do not get enough of them." I asked the programme director and lecturers of our SMA Alliance, which is the Singapore-MIT alliance. We met in MIT. This is a programme that they teach on video, so it is cross-distance. They have students in NUS campus, NTU and MIT - same lecturer delivering to three different groups across the globe. I asked the programme director in SMA, whom we met in MIT recently, if the Singapore students they teach were on par with their students in MIT. I was not trying to fish for comments. This was a serious question and it was asked in that tone. This was among the programme director and the MIT lecturers. The reply was instantaneous and unanimous - definitely so. Our students are on par with them and they want more of them. MNC, CEOs in Singapore tell us that we have the best polytechnics in the world and how they wish their government and electorate would follow our model. These are not CEOs from under-developed countries. They are from developed countries like Germany and other parts of Europe. The sum total of their feedback is this. Our educational system prepares the majority of our students to succeed anywhere in the world. We have been able to do this because we focus on educational fundamentals, building great institutions and teachers, rather than trying to satisfy all aspirations. We knew our limitations and our constraints and we are reaping the fruits of our success. Unfortunately, some fruits are not as sweet as we like, which is this debate. It is symptomatic of our success, as I said. Prof.”
“It is a rhetorical question. How do you and should you stop parents and students wanting to do well and get ahead of others? Can we, for instance, legislate limits to studying hours or outlaw or close down all tuition centres? My point is that the education system is a lightning rod for stress but the tensions emanate from society. Society filters what it deems important. MOE routinely publishes information on schools that have achieved awards in CCA as well as academic results. But more attention is paid to the latter. In our assessment of schools using the School Excellence Model, academic results only count for 15% of the evaluation. As much as our processes are aligned to do what many of the MPs have called for, society steers itself towards a preferred direction. Society places a high premium on certain jobs such as lawyers, doctors, etc. And it is not a passive receiver. Even if you change the system, it will respond. It is a problem of success and should be seen as such, not certainly with the angst, chest-beating and hair wrenching that we see. In fact, we get more praise about our successes from foreigners than Singaporeans which, if we think about it, must discourage many of our teachers. Some Members of Parliament have encouraged Government to say to Singaporeans "Well done" if they do. I wonder how a teacher feels listening to this debate. Consider this. In the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, 93% and 80% of our Secondary Two students were above international average for Mathematics and Science. Schools in the United States are using our textbooks on Mathematics and Science and MOE recently signed an MOU to facilitate transfer of expertise.”
“Stated so glibly, but think of what the realisation of that vision entails - the thousands of teachers we have to attract and train, made no easier by an increasingly fractious and demanding public; the schools we have to build and the curriculum we have to devise. Have we succeeded? Unequivocally, yes. This very debate is symptomatic of that success. Many other countries debate for generations how to arrive at what we have achieved, and then some more. Let me illustrate. Let us look at our PSLE results - the percentage of students who get an "A" or "A+". More than 40% get an "A" or "A+" in English, Mathematics and Science. And despite the furore over our mother tongue, 80% get "A" or "A+" in Chinese. It is because we have managed to raise the tide across the island, giving opportunities and good teaching to heartlanders and cosmopolitans alike, that we now have a problem of what we call "stress". We have made our system school-proof. What do I mean? It means that if we have the aptitude and are willing to work at it, any school in Singapore will get you there. That is what creates the pressure. This is the pressure-head. So when I do my walkabouts in Toa Payoh, or at Pei Chun School, which is one of the leading schools in my constituency, and see the drive of some students and their parents, I shudder for my children because of the competition. Is this drive to excel and compete counter-productive? Should we try to equalise it and distort educational objectives to reduce stress? How? If I lower the bar, more just clear it. If I introduce more subjects or events, can I be sure that the same driven students, who excelled previously, will not try to excel in those new subjects and add even more pressure for themselves and others? Should we do away with examinations?”
“After all, the World Yearbook on Competitiveness repeatedly ranks the Government and the infrastructure that it has built as first in the world. So why have we not approached an educational utopia? I think we can forget ourselves; who we are. By dint of geography and a capricious twist of history, all we landed up with were 640 square kilometres of land and each other. Dr Ong Seh Hong's point bears repeating: who owes Singaporeans a living? Indeed, we are an economic anomaly. Nothing in our constellation projected or predestined us to enjoy prosperity. We now spend about 4% of our GDP on education. About 25% of total Government spending goes into education, the largest component, somewhat on par with defence. In absolute dollar terms, we spend equal amounts on our tertiary students, as do countries in the OECD. How is this possible for a small country? We could do so because we took extremely hard choices in our educational policies, to survive economically and, indeed, socially. Can we afford to continue spending vast amounts in education? Is it a given? Many hon. Members here, including us new ones, experienced first-hand the effects of this recent economic downturn. If the recession stretched longer, would we have had the luxury of this debate on education and, indeed, would people care? So, as much as we malign our economic underpinnings in our educational system, it has served us well. With limited resources, we focused on educational fundamentals. We said let us build great schools in all sectors and across the island. So, whether it was primary, secondary, junior college, ITEs, polytechnics or universities, they had to strive to be the best in the world, teaching not some Singaporeans, but all to be literate and numerate.”
“In a sense, this angst among Singaporeans about our education system is healthy. It implies a measure of ownership, that Singaporeans see themselves as co-travellers and co-builders in our great education enterprise - our investment and legacy for the future. As I sat in this House yesterday and today, this is what I heard. Despite all the good in the system, the hon. MPs said our education system is too stressful. I think most of them said that - not holistic, not focused enough on academic attainments, too narrow in its definition of success, too prescriptive, it gives too little choice - whether it is in the choice of a second language or even in the choice of schools - that we do not allow mainstream Singaporeans to enter international schools; not inclusive enough to address those with special needs and learning disabilities; our system does not endear our students because we make them feel second or, even worse, third-class; too elitist. Many of us will remember the ITE debate in this House. Make people feel good, they say, about themselves; discover and play up their strengths, not their weaknesses; create more opportunities to allow people to progress, especially the polytechnic students to enter the universities, the ITE students into polytechnics, and the like. All these recommendations seek to enrich Singaporeans. So let us ask the obvious: why would we not want these egalitarian outcomes? If it is so obviously good, why has it not already happened? Indeed, why not? I know for a fact that the new MPs, who spoke so passionately on this subject, are not so arrogant as to think that enlightenment has only been endowed on their vintage, and that the past leadership was myopic in its policies.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in the course of the debate, a number of Members have elaborated on issues related to education as a push factor that could turn Singaporeans from stayers to quitters. I am not sure what the hon. Nominated Member of Parliament, despite his answer, means. I am not sure whether there is ever a best time to discuss when one should stay or quit. And I had originally intended to be an appreciative listener in this debate. But I find so much rubble thrown and accumulated at my feet in the Ministry of Education that I feel compelled to join in the fray, lest I get buried in the rubble. Not that this feeling of being buried is novel. Since day one at the Ministry of Education, I have been subjected to an avalanche of feedback from family, friends, Singaporeans and foreigners in every committee that I sit - CEOs, technicians, line operators, all sectors of society. It is safe to assume that there are at least twice as many views as there are people in Singapore on the Ministry of Education. In fact, if you ever wanted to start a conversation, all you have to do is utter the eight magical words: what do you think of our education system? You will excuse me if I do not use that line often. Well, Minister of State for Education, what are you going to do about it? I think, first, listen carefully. And I want to assure Members that I do listen, as do the Ministers in Government, Permanent Secretaries, directors and, more or less, 24,000 teachers that we have in the system, many of whom also have children within the school system. We are not impervious or blind to the current system - unaffected nor detached - because we too are stakeholders. And I assure you my stakes give me feedback every dinner.”
“Did he mean to imply that it was wrong for the Prime Minister to talk about rooting Singaporeans to Singapore?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I seek a clarification from the hon. Nominated Member of Parliament when he said in his opening remarks - I think the word used was unfortunate - to bring up this phrase on stayers and quitters?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it would be wrong to say that the Government fights shy of setting guidelines. I think the Government wants to make sure that we can effect the change, rather than grandstanding and posture. It is the exact reason for the maid accreditation system because you can come up with a sheet and say that is what you do. But would people follow you? Which is why we have the employment agency accreditation scheme so that we can make sure that there is an intermediary. We have 140,000 employers. We have these maid agencies which are in closest contact with these employers placing these maids. How do you effect the change that you want? It is quite one thing to say what you want and it is quite another thing to effect that change. This is the direction that we are moving. We are not only stating how we want these guidelines prescribed but we are also trying to see that they are regulated and implemented. UNSOLD HDB FLATS (Number) 11. Dr Teo Ho Pin asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats are unsold to date; (b) what are the measures taken to sell these flats; and (c) whether HDB will be building any new flats from 2002 to 2004.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was under the impression that the guidelines refer to employment conditions. This would be a similar response to what Mdm Halimah previously asked, that is, it is quite one thing to say that there should be suggested guidelines which the employer expects of the working conditions for the employee in order to craft it in law. I said that the situation suggests that we do not quite need to move towards that because the number of abuses has not been that great. We are not satisfied, but it tells us that we do not have to make it that onerous for employers. But as I have mentioned, there are also other aspects that need not be written in any guidelines which we will prosecute, for example, maid abuse, which is what we are discussing. On one hand, it is the general aspect of raising the threshold of how you treat your foreign domestic worker. I think that would take time, that would evolve. It is not something that you can prescribe at this point of time because it would change. What is normal or what is expected for one household is not quite the same for another. How do you raise the overall standards? I think our measures have worked in most instances and we will continue to see how this mandatory orientation programme works, what improvements it brings and what improvements it needs before we decide on further avenues.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I clarify from Mdm Halimah what guidelines she is referring to?”
“As I have said, under the Criminal Procedure Code, anyone who knows of abuse is bound to report it legally. So if we find that a particular employment agency was aware of the abuse and did not report it, we have a recourse to prosecution.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we do have a peculiar characteristic, that is, we do like to enforce what we set out as guidelines, and that is not a bad thing. We do have guidelines that encourage the employers and employees to go into a written contract. But whether you want to enforce it in law or whether you can do it, I think it is a different matter. But let us have a bit of perspective. The number of cases of reported abuse is 8 for the first half of this year. It has come down. It shows that our enhancement of penalties has worked. Whether we should craft legislation to be more restrictive and more onerous, I think the numbers will help us to move towards any particular direction.”
“Yes, we will undertake that but as I understand it, our minimum age prescribed is consistent with international standards. But I take his point.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me congratulate Mr Chia on his quickness. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not wanting to put too much mental abuse on anybody, particularly on the Minister of State. Obviously, younger maids will be more vulnerable and may be more vulnerable to abuse and so on. The Minister of State did not know what the minimum age is. May I ask him to undertake, if the age is below 21 years, to consider seriously that the minimum age should be set at 21 years which is, after all, the age of adulthood and the age where a contract can probably be made.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if you had to publish, for example, that you should not abuse a maid, that is not something that we need to publish, that is something we already know and something you can act against. You do not need a contract to say that you will not abuse her physically. That is understood. Whether we should move the other way and say she should work X number of hours a day, she should only do prescribed activities within the house, I think it will be difficult. It varies from household to household and we need to be realistic. I think the acid test at the end of the day is for the employer to ask if perchance a relative of his goes to a different country and works as a foreign domestic maid, would he have that employer in another country treat his relative the way he treats his maid?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the majority of households who employ maids treat their maids well. The numbers reflect that. We do not want to make it onerous so that every time you change a maid - and there are many reasons why a maid who joins one particular household needs to go back or she finds it not suitable - you have to attend an orientation programme. I think that would be creating difficulties where it is not necessary. But we will monitor. If this particular programme for first-time employers does not seem to do the trick, we will decide on whether we should extend it. Mr Charles Chong (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister of State, in an earlier response, mentioned that the threshold of reasonableness in households varies tremendously. In fact, there are 140,000 households with maids in Singapore. He also mentioned that his Ministry intends to raise this minimum threshold of reasonableness. Would it then not be timely that his Ministry publish what it thinks is the minimum level of threshold of reasonableness?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we will announce the details in due course, but let me just give Members the schematics. The reason for this scheme which we thought would help is that - Mr Chiam said for the maid, but it is not quite for the maid - it is really for the employer and the employee both to be put in the same room before she starts work, and for a third party to explain the conditions and what it means to work in a household. Whether we do it through a third party or MOM engages professional bodies for it to be done, we have to work out the details. But that very act sends a number of signals to both the employer and employee. It sends a signal to the employer that, yes, the foreign domestic worker is under his employ but he has to be responsible because there are bodies within the Government and professional organisations who are also looking after the welfare of this lady, and this worker can have recourse to MOM or other agencies. It also sends a signal to the maid that there are rights and that she can be protected and this is where she can turn to. I think over and above that, it also helps set out a tone before a foreign domestic worker works in the household that this is an employer-employee relationship. I think that will be the more useful signal that we are going to send.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the hon. Member's point. He is quite right. The number of foreign domestic workers has increased despite the recession. There are really two ways, or a combination of the two, to reduce the number. One, the levy; two, the quota. The quota is difficult because it means that the Ministry has to decide a priori who is fit or whose need is greater for a foreign domestic worker, which leads us to the second recourse, and the Ministry is studying ways to implement that. Assoc. Prof. Ngiam Tee Liang (Nominated Member): It is heartening to note that the mandatory orientation programme for first-time employers is being considered. Maybe, just to get an idea of the shape of things to come, would the Minister just give some idea as to who will be organising it and what would it cover, so that we can see the usefulness and value for those who have to go through it, because the usual psychological block again is: why another enforced mandatory scheme for first-time employers?”
“The hon. Member is an expert on social matters, and I am sure he is aware that mental abuse or non-physical abuse varies from one person to another. I am sure if we took a poll on the Members sitting in this House, some or even many of us may be mentally abused today! The percentage will vary from day to day. So, it is difficult to quantify. More importantly, we want to create access and avenues for any foreign domestic worker who thinks that she has been abused, to be able to contact a particular agency, whether it is MOM or the police, for us to be able to investigate that. And that has been made available. I do not have the specific numbers. I am not quite sure whether we capture it in terms of mental or physical abuse, but we have captured all cases of abuse generically, and the numbers I have mentioned stand. Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, based on the number the Minister of State has mentioned, would he not say that the percentage of households having maids in Singapore is rather high and, in my view, maybe among the highest in all communities in the world? Has the Ministry studied what is the propensity of Singaporean households having maids, and what measures have been considered to reduce this dependency?”
“I need to check on Mr Chiam's point on minimum age. I think it exists, but I am not sure at what point it is prescribed. In terms of training, the hon. Member is quite right that we need a holistic solution. I do not want to be prescriptive and say it has to be 'x' number of hours. What we do want is a minimum standard to be achieved. The only way we can do that is, one, to have an accreditation system first; two, a training facility; three, a prescribed programme; and, four, a carrot-and-stick approach. Case Trust has come forward to offer to implement this accreditation system for us and we have accepted, but my Ministry has also said that we are open to any employment agency or association that can put forth a programme that satisfies our requirements. But the overall aim and the final goal are that we want to raise the level, to make sure that employment agencies, as the hon. Member said, train and also put some care into the placement, ie, match the employer and his worker.”
“Mdm Halimah has touched on a number of points. We need to deal with them separately. One, encouraging employers and their maids to have prescribed working conditions, and I have said we do encourage it. Two, trying to craft it in legislation. This is an issue of enforcement. Even if we had these minimum conditions, can we enforce them? She therefore suggests that we employ inspectors. There is a balance to this. How much do we want to intrude into households versus protecting the maids? We have moved somewhat along those lines, in terms of the accreditation scheme for employment agencies, where we require them to check on the maids who are placed with the employers twice within six months from commencement of work. So, that is moving somewhere. To have a full force of inspectors going from house to house periodically asking how the maids have been treated, how they are, and seeing whether the terms of the employment conditions have been met, is a radical jump. I am not sure whether that is the way to move. It is an intrusion. We do not think that the situation of maid abuse quite warrants that drastic measure because, as I have mentioned, eight cases were reported and there has been a drop. So, our measures seem to have worked. We will move on the more encouraging measures before we move more into enforcement.”