Png Eng Huat
Singapore
“This question is for the Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad. I just want to seek clarity on whether these two groups of Self-employed Person qualify for the COVID-19 Support Grant or SIRS. Those SEPs who are not on the Workfare radar, who do not contribute to their CPF, but they do file their income tax returns.”
“Some help measures will only come in May or later, but many affected Singaporeans were already struggling to make ends meet since February. I appreciate the Ministry for working at breakneck speed to roll out these measures. I am happy to note that some of these measures are being brought forward to April. Thank you.”
“Our MRT system is also facing an operating cost deficit which will grow with new rail lines that may well redistribute existing passengers rather than grow new ridership. While the fare formula has added the network capacity factor to address rising operating cost deficits, cost management is also important.”
“In the two new BTO precincts in Hougang, the Town Council had to build extra ramps, footpaths and stairs, in addition to the few designated access points, in order to facilitate the safe movement of residents on the ground.”
“This resident is in his early 60s and was running a regional outfit before he was retrenched. What are the chances of him getting either one of the funding options?”
“Sir, would the Ministry be looking into instituting, say, staggered school or working hours, to ease the concerns of parents, students and workers travelling during rush hours even under the current DORSCON level when more infection cases start to surface?”
The complete record
Every one of 386 lines we hold for Png Eng Huat, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 8.
“Some elderly residents would prefer not to go out at all, and they would depend on their neighbours to help them with the errands. I would like to ask the Ministry how long more must these residents wait for a solution to free them of this physical impediment to active ageing and quality of life. It is good to give these residents an indication of the time required to resolve the lift access issue. These residents need to make long-term plans. While some HDB flats are challenging to implement 100% lift access, some are relatively easy to resolve. Take, for example, residents of Block 363 Hougang Avenue 5 are just three additional lift shafts away from achieving 100% lift access. So, it is only a cost issue. For those HDB flats with complicated structures, can HDB look into solutions like vertical platform lifts, which are suitable for wheelchair use, and rather compact and inexpensive to implement for short level access? Sir, the $5 billion LUP has brought relief to many residents residing in over 5,000 HDB blocks. In all fairness, residents living in the remaining 150 blocks should also get the benefits of direct lift access. I seek confirmation from the Ministry that effort is continuing to bring 100% lift access to these affected blocks in the near future. Home Improvement Programme (HIP) and (HIP2) Sir, the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) has also brought much relief for many households suffering from water seepage and spalling concrete issues due to wear and tear over time. Some of these issues are long-standing but such relief offered by HIP should not be short-lived.”
“And if their parents are living in a mature estate, who can fault these first-timer applicants for wanting to secure a new flat in and around the popular estate? Next, would HDB consider offering balance flats to young couples who were unsuccessful in previous attempts to secure their first flats, be it in the same development or not, so as to help them secure a flat sooner? Sir, when the Minister announced that HDB had cleared the backlog of first-timer applicants, does it actually translate to shorter waiting time for new first-timer flat applicants? Lift Upgrading Programme 2.0 The Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) has benefited many households since the programme was launched in 2001. LUP has allowed many senior citizens to go out and meet their friends or watch the world go by at the playground or at the void deck, even if they are on mobility aids. In short, LUP has given these senior citizens a comforting and reassuring sense of independence at an age when they may have to be home alone. From the last update we have in this House, there are about 150 blocks of HDB flats left without direct lift access for all floors. Six of these blocks are in Hougang. In my conversations with the affected residents living in these blocks of flats, I can sense their anxiety and despair about ageing in an environment with no direct lift access. To some of these residents, their flats are not built of concrete alone, but of memories. They would like to age in a place they call home. But without direct lift access, these residents may become prisoners in their own homes over time. Some residents told me they need to make special arrangement just to bring their aged parents to visit the doctor.”
“Sir, it was mentioned in this House in 2014 that HDB had cleared the backlog of first-timer applicants for HDB flats. A year before that, in a COS speech, the Minister for National Development said, "A couple of months ago, HDB announced that they were planning about 23,000 Build-To-Order (BTO) flats. I decided to tell them to up the figure to 25,000 because I wanted to decisively clear the backlog of all married HDB first-timers this year." Sir, five years have passed, I am still hearing young couples, married or waiting to tie the knot, sharing about their difficulties of securing their matrimonial flat. I have a resident who has just made his sixth attempt to apply for a flat recently, having started the application process about two years ago, and he is getting married in a year’s time. Some first-timers were given queue numbers that far exceeded the number of flats available for booking, while others were not even given a queue number to begin with, especially when balance flats are put on sale. I can understand why some young couples are only interested in an SBF. If they have put off starting a family for two years trying to secure a flat, they may not want to wait another three more years for a BTO flat with their biological clock ticking away. How can HDB help these young couples own their first matrimonial flats with less stress and more certainty as the future of our next generation depends on them? Some of them were told to spread their options further if they want to secure a BTO or SBF flat, but that will mean living further away from their parents who, more often than not, would be the first port of call to help when they are starting their own families. Sir, first-timer married applicants are also encouraged to live near their parents.”
“Sir, when supporting infrastructure is playing catch-up in a growing estate, the belated construction work will only add to the traffic congestion woes and exacerbate the misery of the residents living there. Some things can be hard to predict but we are living in an era of big data. Some trends and problems can be predicted and anticipated with a fair amount of accuracy. I would like to ask the Coordinating Minister for Infrastructure how often do the various Ministries and authorities meet to share and address such mismatch of housing developments, transport infrastructure and amenities.”
“Sir, it was reported in the news last November that the estate of Punggol was morphing into one of the largest housing estates in Singapore. However, residents there were reported to be suffering from growing pains as the infrastructure and services in the estate did not keep up with the growing population. Residents found themselves staring at growing congestion and longer commuting time with each new development sprouting up in the estate. In another report, it was stated that the traffic congestion in Punggol has been a long-standing problem, stretching back to almost five years ago. Even when a new link road connecting Punggol Centre to the nearby expressways came into operation, one resident predicted that the traffic congestion would return in a few years' time. Amenities like childcare centres, healthcare facilities, and food outlets were also reported to be in need of improvement to meet the demands of the growing population in Punggol. Sir, it is going to be déjà vu in the estate around Upper Serangoon Road, leading towards Hougang Avenue 7 and the Kallang-Paya Lebar Expressway (KPE). There are now new housing estates and condominiums sprouting up and the traffic on Hougang Avenue 7 enroute to KPE is also coming to a crawl every weekday morning. This part of the estate is also short on amenities like childcare centres. Residents in Hougang can already predict what is to come in the not-too-distant future when more people start to move into the new developments in the estate. Would we be seeing a repeat of what the residents of Punggol were experiencing the past five years? Would other upcoming estates be facing the same problems as well?”
“At the end of your maturity date, you should be able to take out with interest.”
“Chairman, just a question for the Minister. I am happy to know that the PEA is not going up. But would the Minister consider lowering the PEA and let the member decide, because the tradeoff, if you have an early withdrawal, you are going to get less, and if you delay your withdrawal, you are going to get more? Let the member decide. It means having the PEA at 60.”
“Sir, I certainly hope that the Ministry can exercise more flexibility in the use of CPF savings for housing needs in situations like this. Finally, I wish to reiterate the call for more flexibility in allowing members to tap into their RA before their official retirement age of 62. We certainly do not know when we will need to slow down or stop working completely before age 62. When that happens, our income will drop drastically. We should allow members to do their own sums to determine if they need to start their CPF payouts early before retirement age. CPF members should be given the option and flexibility to plan their retirement needs at their own comfort level. PEA should be lowered to age 60. Let us decide if we are comfortable to take the lower payout at age 60 or wait out for a higher payout later. Singaporeans have continued to support this Government despite knowing that they can no longer withdraw their money completely at age 55. They have continued to give this Government the mandate, knowing that they will not see their entire CPF savings until PEA and only in monthly payouts. Why is this Government so reluctant to even offer such flexibility to Singaporeans in return? Opportunities for People with Special Needs”
“I have residents who needed to tap into their SA or RA to help service their mortgage arrears, but such requests were mostly rejected. The standard reply given was members must always strike a balance between retirement and housing needs. Sir, most members would not even think about tapping into these accounts for housing needs, if not out of sheer desperation. Some of these members were hauled to Court by the lenders, and each Court appearance would only push these members deeper into debt. Some of them were staring at a very real possibility of losing their flats. Some of these members have less than $10,000 standing in their SA or RA, and they are already in their late 40s or 50s. How is that amount even meaningful for retirement purposes? How long can these members stretch their payouts at PEA and how much would the payout be per month? Can the CPF Board not feel the gravity of the predicament these members are facing? It is not right to make these members beg to use their own money to save their flats. Sir, the CPF Board must also strike a balance between retirement and housing needs. If there is no roof over a person's head, what is retirement? With his home intact, a member can still rent out a room or two to make ends meet. 2.30 pm The member can also explore the possibility of moving into a smaller flat when not under duress and use the proceeds for retirement. But all these options will vapourise if there is no flat left for the member to even plan his retirement. Furthermore, any money used for property purchase would have to be returned to the member's CPF when the flat is sold with accrued interest. No one can siphon off any CPF money used for property purchase in any way. The money is going straight back into the CPF and nowhere else.”
“Sir, we will spend the most productive years of our lives building up our CPF savings by age 55. After that, we will probably have to confront ageism at work, health issues and rising cost of living. The last thing we want to do at that point in time is to argue with the Government on when and how we can tap into our hard-earned CPF savings for retirement. The recent public disquiet over the allegation that CPF Board had quietly moved the Payout Eligibility Age (PEA) to 70, though unfounded, goes to show how much we look forward to the day when we can finally see and touch our CPF money. So, any attempt to change that day, regardless of intention, will be met with disgust and anger, and rightly so. Thus, the call to set the auto payout at PEA by default should be considered seriously because it sends a clear message that the Government does not intend to and will not keep the members’ hard-earned savings beyond what is mandated by law. The question we should be asking ourselves is: by setting the auto payout at PEA, will it change the fundamental tenet of the CPF saving scheme in any way? The answer is no. There is not an iota of change at all. Members can still choose to delay their payouts to earn more interest, if preferred. Sir, CPF is like a fixed deposit instrument to me. Upon maturity date, you can expect to see your money deposited into your account with interest, unless you have instructed the bank to roll over the deposit. I can assure the Minister that no members will quibble with the Government when they see their hard-earned money deposited into their accounts automatically on their PEA unless instructed otherwise. Next, I wish to talk about balancing retirement and housing needs using CPF.”
“Can I ask the Ministry with regard to my cut: what is the roadmap for Singaporeans with stepchildren in terms of their children getting their PR or citizenship if they cannot be legally adopted, as I have explained in my cut?”
“In my conversations with Singaporeans with foreign stepchildren, they are deeply concerned how their stepchildren would feel as they grow older and come to know that they are actually quite different from their brothers or sisters in many ways. I urge the Ministry to grant these stepchildren of families with a strong Singaporean Core, permanent residency or citizenship sooner rather than later. Science and Technology”
“Sir, it was reported in the Population White Paper of 2013 that about 40% of all marriages registered in Singapore involved a non-Singaporean and there was a rising trend in international marriages over the years as well. These marriages would have a strong and sustainable Singaporean Core to begin with, and even more so, when these married couples decide to start a family. Some of these foreign spouses may be in their second marriage and have children of their own with them. While these foreign spouses may be granted permanent residency in due course, their children from previous marriages are facing an uncertain future. These children will not get Permanent Resident (PR) status by default. In such cases, Singaporeans with foreign stepchildren to raise would have to struggle with non-subsidised school fees, medical fees and more, if they are unable to legally adopt these children. Sir, some adoption procedures can be onerous. For example, to adopt a stepchild from China, the consent of the biological ex-spouse must be sought. If the ex-spouse is missing, non-cooperative or even hostile, it is next to impossible for the Singaporean to legally adopt his stepchild. Some of these stepchildren can never go back to their home countries as well because they were abandoned at birth by one half of their parents. Sir, our total fertility rate has been below the replacement rate for decades. Here, we have children who are already an integral part of the Singaporean Core families, who are totally integrated into our society and who are as Singaporean as any one of their local siblings. Can we not grant these children PR status at the very least, until they reach the age of 21? These grown-up children can then make their own declaration to become citizens at that point in time.”
“Sir, this important benefit is assuring but it is also a benefit by default to begin with, since MediShield Life is made compulsory for all. Everyone has to pay for medical coverage by law, regardless of who you are. So, this important MediShield Life benefit, as mentioned by the Minister, only makes more sense for pensioners if the Government continues to pay the premium for their spouses when they are no longer around. Otherwise, the spouses will have to come under MediShield Life by law as they do not have a choice. Sir, I would like to ask the Government to clarify if it would continue to pay the MediShield Life premiums for the spouse of pensioners as a benefit when the old medical coverage ceases with the passing of a pensioner. Deepening Skills of Officers”
“Sir, I had spoken on the impact of MediShield Life on pensioners when the compulsory health insurance scheme was introduced and debated in this House in 2014 and 2015. As I understood from some pensioners, they have continued to receive the same medical benefit as before, as assured in this House, although not under MediShield Life but under their original pension medical scheme. As it is, these pensioners are insured under MediShield Life in name only even though they do not need the coverage. I understand their MediShield Life premiums are paid for by the Government and transitional subsidies through MediSave top-ups. The MediShield Life scheme is almost five years now. While pensioners are not worse off, in terms of their medical benefits, I wish to ask the Government if there is any study or survey done to ascertain the financial impact of the redundant MediShield Life coverage on pensioners. After factoring in the various MediSave top-ups, did the subsidies help pensioners pay for their MediShield Life premiums as well as for their spouses' premium in full without the need to incur any out-of-pocket expenses? This is important because this Government has assured pensioners in this House that they would not be worse off under MediShield Life. By that, it should also mean that they would not be financially burdened when they are put under the compulsory but never used medical scheme. Next, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said that pensioners have one important benefit with MediShield Life that they did not have previously. He said that the spouse of a pensioner will cease to have medical benefits when the pensioner passes away. But under MediShield Life, the spouse will be covered by MediShield when the pensioner is no longer around.”
“Just one more question for the Minister. For members who did not want to start their payout at PEA, will they be reminded again every year until age 70?”
“I just have a supplementary question for the Minister. Did MOM reach out to those people who did not activate their payout at PEA, or even beyond 70, to find out why? Perhaps do a survey to this group of people, since we know who they are?”
“I have two questions to ask the Minister. It was reported on the MOH website that Ler has been charged under the OSA for failing to take reasonable care of confidential information regarding HIV-positive patients. So, the critical issue here is not really about failing to take reasonable care of the confidential information. The issue here is why did the MOH system at NPHU allow someone to download the entire database. You can access the database but why allow someone to download the entire database onto a thumb drive, to begin with? I seek confirmation from the Minister that there was actually no safeguard against such downloading of the entire database by authorised staff prior to 2016. The second issue is, I also read from the MOH website that additional safeguards against mishandling of information by authorised staff were only put in place three to four years after MOH was first alerted to an allegation that Ler had misused the HIV Registry. I also understand earlier from Minister Iswaran that there are regular mandated IT audits done with regard to security of personal data at our public agencies. So, why did it take so long for MOH to implement the additional safeguards because authorised staff still can access and download the entire database like what Ler did from 2013 to 2016, before the additional measures were put in?”
“I just want to seek a confirmation from the Minister. Does this mean that SP Group has been supplying electricity at market rate all this while? Is that a yes or no?”
“Speaker, this is for Minister Iswaran. The public version of the COI report is comprehensive on the technical facts of the cyberattack and also recommendations to prevent a repeat of such an incident. But it has fallen short on the damage control for the victims of the cyberattack. Imagine if someone were to receive an email/SMS and now, possibly, a hardcopy letter, purportedly from SingHealth or even CSA, stating his name, National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) number, date of birth, gender, race, to name some of the stolen data, and asking that unsuspecting person to call or to go online to verity some information because someone has given him wrong medication or some innocuous matter, life is going to be hell for this person if he were to make the first contact and fall victim to the scam. So, my first question is, in the aftermath of the cyberattack, why did CSA say that there is no strong commercial value for such data when the danger for loss of privacy and financial for our victims of this cyberattack is clear and present? To summarise, what is the Government going to do next to assure and alert this group of victims about such a danger? Because telling the victim to make a Police report is rather moot after they have suffered financial/privacy loss because it is very difficult to investigate cross-border cybercrimes.”
“It is just in the opinion page, if you look into the records of 2007 to 2012. In the first financial statement, they will put the phrase there —”
“No, it was not. It was from the auditor of PA who was auditing —”
“I thank the Minister for reminding about the adverse opinion. But I can tell you that when auditors issue an adverse opinion, it means something. It means they could not see, they could not verify the accounts of the grassroots. And those are not hundreds or thousands of dollars. Those are millions of dollars. So, that is why they issued an adverse report. An adverse report means something, actually. If it is a technical issue, I am sure the auditors can do something about it though.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, just one last question. I think just now the Minister said that because of the auditor giving us a qualified account for two years – I think the history is there, it had been debated here – because of that, the Government ordered AGO to audit our accounts, because our auditor qualified our accounts. Then, I would like to ask the Minister, PA has many years of qualified accounts before 2007 and six years of consecutive adverse report, why then did the Government not order any audits on PA?”
“No, I am saying history, PA has many years of qualified accounts before 2007, if you look. I looked through all the reports; 2007 to 2012, it has adverse opinion. Adverse opinion is the worst opinion they can ever get for an audit report; six consecutive years. And I have asked why then there is no independent audit on PA. And then, when it finally cleared its accounts in 2013, every year is, I think, true and fair. And when AGO audited it in 2014, 2017, they found all these serious lapses. So, what I am asking for is accountability. Accountability must mean something, it must mean for all. And it is not too much to ask for that.”
“Deputy Speaker, the AGO report actually mentioned that there were serious weaknesses in control and there were telltale signs that certain documents were not authentic. AGO will not use such words unless there is reasonable doubt. I think I spoke in this Parliament before that AGO did a special audit on AHPETC and I accepted all the findings. I have full respect for the AGO. In terms of audit report, the PA has many years of qualified accounts. And then—”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for the answer. I just got a couple of supplementary questions. Who should be ultimately held accountable for such lapses – the grassroots organisations volunteers or the management of PA? Because the PA is not run by volunteers, it is headed by People's Action Party Ministers and Members of Parliament in this Chamber and it is allocated a huge budget, closing in on $1 billion with professionally paid staff, so it is not an amateur outfit to begin with. So, I would like to ask the Minister where the buck stops for accountability at PA. The second question is: does the Minister agree that the work of the current auditor for PA, which has been giving PA a clean report since financial year (FY) 2013, needs to be audited as it could not pick up serious lapses repeatedly, some with telltale signs of possible fraud as reported in the AGO report? And since there is no assurance that the audit work at PA was done to the highest standard of transparency and corporate governance, would the Minister consider ordering an independent investigation or a full AGO audit, or even a forensic audit to ensure public money is well spent? The last question is: does the Minister agree that it is important to hold PA to greater accountability going forward, since the weakness at PA has not been addressed over time and the lapses have become more brazen? Which Government agency would allow its staff to conduct parallel quotations and also to pay almost $150,000 in cash for overseas purchases and seek reimbursement using cash receipts? Just these three questions, Sir.”
“Sir, can the Minister share what major points of contention were removed in the single Draft Negotiation Text of the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea? And in the Minister's opinion, how far is the draft away from being adopted by all the member states?”
“Sir, I want to ask the Minister just a question. Would the Minister, in the interest of transparency, make the adjudication process training public, so that at least we, as candidates, would know how AROs adjudicate such invalid votes?”
“Beyond showing voters where to mark on a ballot paper, the Elections Department should also educate voters on what will invalidate their votes. At this juncture, I wish to reiterate the Workers' Party’s stand on the NCMP scheme. We oppose the scheme as we believe in the fundamental principle that having more NCMPs is not the way forward to make our political system more robust. So, barring the amendment made to section 52(1) of the principal Act to revise the formula to determine the number of NCMP to be declared in an election, I do support the amendment Bill.”
“Second, clause 15, which amends section 50 of the principal Act, introduces a new sub-section (2A) to instruct the Returning Officer, when determining whether a mark made on a ballot paper clearly indicates the voter’s intention to vote for the candidate or group of candidates, to disregard any mark that is not made within the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose. I wish to ask the Minister, does that mean that as long as a voter’s mark is made within the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose, a voter is allowed to exercise his artistic licence elsewhere on the ballot paper and it would still be counted as a valid vote, since the Returning Officer must disregard other mark found on the ballot paper as directed under this new amendment? If a voter were to cross out the name of a particular candidate with words like “clown”, "my hero" or "Mr Bean", and then proceed to put an “X” in the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose, would the Returning Officer be compelled to treat it as a valid vote under this proposed amendment to section 50 of the Parliamentary Elections Act? I hope the Minister can provide more clarity on this amendment, else it will only cause more confusion. Voting is a serious act of civic responsibility. I believe we should not allow the ballot paper to be marked in any other way other than prescribed under the Act. There should be no other mark other than the mark left by the voter in the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose. Returning Officers should not be tasked to disregard any other mark found on the ballot paper but to designate such ballot as invalid, as outright invalid. Voter education is also important.”
“So, while this amendment Bill seeks to issue clearer guidelines on what the Returning Officers and their assistants should look for in a ballot paper when determining the intention of the voter, I wish to seek some clarifications from the Minister on some of the proposed changes. First, clause 11 of this Bill, which amends section 42 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, introduces a new sub-section (3AA), which states that “the voter’s mark on the ballot paper must be made in the area demarcated on the ballot paper for that purpose, and not elsewhere.” Sir, to the visually impaired or elderly with poor eyesight, putting a mark squarely within the area demarcated on the ballot paper can be challenging, especially if these voters do not want any help to do so for whatever reason. I am sure many of us in this House would have come across ballot papers with the voter’s mark imprinted outside the area demarcated for that purpose. I believe the intentions of these voters were in no way unclear. However, such votes would be deemed invalid under the proposed amendment to section 42 of the Parliamentary Elections Act. We are an ageing society and we will see more and more elderly voters in time to come. I have utmost respect for these voters who, despite their advanced age or disability, are determined to play a role in shaping our democracy, come what may. It would be sad to know that their effort and passion could be in vain with the proposed amendment. I seek more information from the Minister to address this concern. Separately, I hope the Elections Department could also look into designing a ballot paper with a larger area demarcated for the voters to mark with greater ease.”
“Mr Speaker, it is hard for anyone to believe that in this modern age, we still sometimes cannot have a clear definition of what constitutes a valid vote in an election. I have seen a ballot paper with a faint squiggly cross marked inside the demarcated box rejected by an Assistant Returning Officer (ARO) on the basis that the intention of the voter was not clear. I was flabbergasted and perplexed at the same time on how the ARO could have arrived at such a conclusion. The said voter could easily be an elderly person who, for some reason, could not imprint a more forceful mark on that ballot paper but that did not mean his or her intention was not clear in any way. I have also seen ballot papers with a tick and a diagonal line drawn across it, well within the demarcated box for the preferred candidate, being marked for rejection. The reason, a tick means "yes" but the diagonal line across it forms an "X", which means "no". So, yes and no at the same time, the intention of the voter was not clear. Yet, I have seen an "X" marked on the party logo area counted as valid. I have also witnessed symbols and expletives in the demarcated box of a ballot paper counted as valid as well. When I asked the Returning Officer to adjudicate on the validity of the rejected votes, he said the individual ARO at the respective counting tables has the authority to decide on such a matter. Sir, in the two General Elections I contested, there were at least six counting tables in each of the counting centres. So, I am looking at potentially six different interpretations of what constitutes a valid vote, just in one counting centre alone. How can we call ourselves a developed country when we cannot even define, in simple terms and without ambiguity, what is a valid vote?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a quick clarification. Those blocks that cannot get LUP because of the funding cap, why in the first place did the Ministry not put them under the main LUP contract because they will enjoy huge economies of scale when it comes to bidding? Some contractors are like that. If I build one lift, it is more expensive, I do not mind throwing in a few other freebies. If the whole thing were to be parked under the original LUP, I think those blocks which have funding cap issues will probably be resolved. I do not know whether the Ministry could consider throwing another tender for all these lifts.”
“This is for Minister Gan. This is on the point where the scheme allows members to withdraw cash from their MediSave account to support their long-term care needs. Is this scheme parked under CareShield Life? That means that a person must be certified to need long-term care, then only he/she can apply to withdraw cash from his/her MediSave? Or is this parked outside? That means, anyone who needs long-term care can apply, and who will certify that the person needs long-term care? The second question is: can that person use his/her family members' MediSave as well?”
“Universal insurance coverage is also a good thing but it should not be oversold with projections and assumptions that are bordering on paranoia. I wish to ask the Minister how the premiums for CareShield Life are determined. Is it based on a doomsday scenario that one in two healthy Singaporeans aged 65 today could become severely disabled in their lifetime or based on actual claim experience from ElderShield? As rightly stated in the review report, "it is challenging to accurately project claims experience, longevity and disability trends decades in advance." So, there is no need to stress and repeat that half our population could become severely disabled in time to come just to bring CareShield Life into existence. I note the Minister's explanation on this rather depressing statement. Based on what the Minister has said, all of us would be severely disabled in our lifetime anyway, when we are nearer our deathbed. I believe CareShield Life can stand on its own merit. The only thing left is for the Government to be transparent with the actuarial calculations for premiums since the proposed scheme is meant to be not for profit. On this note, I urge the Government to release the actuarial computation report and the thinking that went behind the formulation of the premiums for CareShield Life.”
“Next, it was stated in the review report that premiums for the proposed CareShield Life should be adjusted regularly to take into account changes in payout quantum and claims experience. It also lists investment returns on the insurance fund as one of the factors affecting the pricing of premiums. Sir, I do not believe Singaporeans should be made to bear higher premiums due to bad investment returns on the insurance fund of CareShield Life. CareShield Life is supposed to be self-funding based on actuarial calculations and risk-pooling approach. The insurance fund accumulated should not be invested in high-risk instruments to begin with. The report also acknowledged that the role of insurance should be strengthened to play a more prominent part to help Singaporeans prepare for their long-term care needs, while Government subsidies, personal savings and family support will continue to be the main source of support in this area. With the proposed transformation of ElderShield to CareShield Life, could the Minister reveal how much, in percentage, the Government is targeting for the proposed scheme to contribute to the projected cost of long-term care in Singapore when it is made compulsory for all in 2020, and how much would the Government subsidies come down correspondingly as a result? At this point, I welcome what the Minister said earlier in allowing members to withdraw cash from their MediSave accounts to support their long-term care needs. I have one clarification to seek on this point. Can someone who is deemed not so severely disabled by CareShield Life apply for such withdrawal, that is, that person can only perform two instead of three ADLs? CareShield Life is superior to ElderShield in many ways.”
“If you are unable to move from room to room or move from a bed to an upright chair on your own, you are also not counted as severely disabled under ElderShield. How is that so? Sir, I support Ms Sylvia Lim's call for the Government to review the definition of “severe disability”, specifically to consider reducing the three-ADLs criterion. The proposed enhanced plan, also known as CareShield Life, is recommended to be compulsory for all adults and for contribution to start as young as from age 30. It will have the legislative backing and muscle to achieve risk-pooling coverage at an unprecedented scale. Thus, it is able to offer not just better benefits, but a more inclusive definition of severe disability as well. Why was this part of ElderShield not put under any review? It is stated in the review report that many of the projections and parameters for formulating the enhanced scheme are based on local data and supplemented by international data. Did the Committee review any international data on the approach to define severe disability versus ElderShield’s definition, which has remained unchanged since 2002? If Japan, which has the highest percentage of senior citizens in the world, is deemed the most lenient in claims criteria for long-term care insurance across countries compared in the review report, would that make Singapore the least lenient then, looking at the comparison? And, why is that so? The 2018 review of ElderShield calls for expanding the insurance coverage to achieve greater inclusivity. Would it not be reasonable to expect the enhanced scheme to have a more inclusive definition of severe disability as well? Surely, inclusivity must also mean helping more people stricken with disability, beyond achieving universal coverage for all.”
“Mr Speaker, the 2018 review of ElderShield is timely for our ageing society. At the launch of the scheme in 2002, more than a third of eligible Singaporeans and Permanent Residents aged 40 to 69 opted out of the scheme. For some reason, the share of eligible residents not covered by ElderShield remained roughly the same, 15 years later, in 2017. I did not find the benefits of ElderShield meaningful and assuring back in 2002. Even after the scheme was reviewed in 2007, my opinion of the scheme remained unchanged. The current review, however, is a step in the right direction. The proposed lifetime payouts, for as long as the claimant remains severely disabled, will provide greater assurance for claimants and their families. Similar to the review done in 2007, the definition of "severe disability" was left untouched again in the review of 2018. As Ms Sylvia Lim has pointed out earlier, I also find the criteria to file a claim under ElderShield too strict to begin with. A 2018 review report on ElderShield has a passing mention of some focus group participants suggesting some payouts upon mild or moderate disability instead of upon severe disability, but that suggestion was glossed over with a statement that the Review Committee preferred to prioritise, and I quote, "critical benefit enhancements to payout duration and quantum" in order to keep the enhanced scheme affordable. Mr Speaker, not being able to do just one of the six ADLs is already a challenge for most of us in this House, yet one must demonstrate the inability to perform three ADLs in order to qualify for benefits under ElderShield. If anyone of you is unable to eat on your own and use the toilet on your own, you are not deemed severely disabled.”
“And I welcome his commitment that this Government will continue to improve its policy and not to stop at the proposed measures.”
“If you have the resources, the money, the proper nutrition, the proper training, the proper technique, you will stand a better chance of coming top in whatever you do. Can we honestly say every student is starting from the same base because every school is a good school, so may the best student win? Sir, our future lies in the hands of our children. What we want them to learn and experience in school now will determine what the future holds for the next generation. We can either teach them about the importance of equality and diversity or let them live it and experience it first-hand in the fair and just society that leaves no behind as set out by the President. The late Encik Yusof Ishak in his first President's Address to a newly elected Parliament in 1968 outlined three objectives to achieve for Singapore. The first two objectives were to build an effective defence capability and to achieve greater economic growth. These two objectives were to be brought up time and again, in one form or another, by subsequent Presidents, and for good reasons. We live in a world that is constantly changing and evolving. These objectives will need to move with the times. The third point highlighted by Encik Yusof was about the need to enhance our national consciousness of the problems that will beseech a young nation in time to come. Specifically, he said Singaporeans must learn to place national interest above personal or sectional interests. Now that we are conscious of the issue of social inequality in society that is gravitating to a class divide, what more can we do with this reality and knowledge? The Minister has stated yesterday that we all have an unfinished business in tackling inequality.”
“It is also a known fact that popular schools will have less problems raising additional funds from their well-connected alumni, while neighbourhood schools will struggle in this area. Does the Minister not agree that it makes a world of difference when smaller neighbourhood schools are resourced with the same amount of funding as the popular schools? Is the Minister willing to do something bold in the area of equitable funding for all schools? In the same COS debate, I also proposed a fundamental change to the Secondary 1 posting exercise to address the lack of diversity in our popular schools. I shall not repeat the details here, but in a nutshell, I propose that students finishing in the top tier of their primary schools based on PSLE results be given direct admission to a secondary school of their choice. This move will ensure a good mix and spread of students from all spectrum of primary schools going into the popular secondary schools. This will definitely introduce diversity into the so-called elite schools. This will also prevent elitism from entrenching itself in any of the popular schools. For parents who want their children to attend a popular secondary school, every primary school is now a good school to start the journey. Some may question that this is not meritocratic. I beg to differ, because these students, even if their T-scores are lower than the cut-off points for the popular secondary schools are high achievers in their own rights. They have certainly earned their place with direct admission into a school of their choice by finishing top in their respective primary schools. The proposal is still based on meritocracy but at the local level. Meritocracy is never a fair game.”
“Does MOE know how many students in GEP have undergone test preparation even though MOE has stated in its website that parents should not enrol their children for such activities? MOE says such GEP preparation activities could inflate pupils' scores and not reflect their actual potential. Such acknowledgment by MOE offers simple proof or ample proof that parents can give their children a headstart if they can afford it. What will the profile of GEP and Special Assistance Plan (SAP) students tell us about race and income then? Does MOE know whether students from elite schools are spending more time on tuition and enrichment then their counterparts from the neighbourhood schools? Does MOE know whether the tuition culture here had a hand in helping our students achieve the impressive test results in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015 chart that was presented in this Chamber yesterday? I am sure MOE would agree and knowing this number is important. Any measure formulated to address social inequality or lack of diversity in our schools must take into consideration the entire education ecosystem. Without this information, any formulated measure would be, as in the words of the President, "tweaking things at the margin". Two years ago, in the Committee of Supply (COS) debate in 2016, I said that all schools are created not equal because the funding per school is different to begin with. Based on per capita funding per student, popular schools with a large student enrolment will always have more funds by default, whilst shrinking neighbourhood schools will always struggle to find money to run extra enrichment programmes.”
“From the Addendum to the President's Address, the Ministry of Education (MOE) intends to tackle the inequality in our education system by setting up more MOE Kindergartens to improve quality, affordability and accessibility in the preschool sector. The Ministry also wants to build more school-based student care centres to cater to the holistic needs of students especially those from disadvantaged families. MOE also intends to tackle the lack of diversity in our schools by reserving more places for students with no affiliation priority for admission into affiliated secondary schools. It also wishes to actively promote interaction amongst students of all backgrounds through applied learning, co-curricular activities (CCAs) and Outward Bound School camps. Sir, for a long while already, parents who can afford it will not depend solely on the national school system to prep their children for education, the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) or the Gifted Education Programme (GEP). They will send their children to expensive tuition and enrichment classes and there is no shortage of firm believers in such classes to deliver the high T-score and distinction for their children. This will perpetuate the message that if you have the money, your child will stand a better chance of getting good grades. The lack of diversity in our schools will only grow. As for the proposed initiative to promote interaction amongst students of all backgrounds, I must say those interactions are rather fleeting in nature and are confined to small groups of students each time. Such interactions, I am afraid, are rather piecemeal in nature and they will not even put a dent on the class divide issue.”
“It was reported in the news that one of the researchers of the study said Singapore has shifted from a society based on race to one that is based on class as well. We just heard from the Minister yesterday that social stratification is fast becoming entrenched here. Although this Government has acknowledged its concern over the lack of diversity in our schools and housing estates, it is somewhat not as alarmed by the finding as explained by Minister Grace Fu early this year. Nevertheless, we can certainly agree that if this class divide is left unchecked, our aspiration of building a nation undivided by race, language or religion would be tinted by the ugly reality of class-based society. The lack of our diversity in our school is one issue we need to address to tackle the problem of social inequality. This is important because this Government views education as a key pillar of social mobility and I do support that wholeheartedly. Long before the release of the IPS study on this issue, the principle of Raffles Institution in 2015, proclaimed that the school has become a middle-class school, catering largely to affluent families and was no longer truly representative of Singapore. He said, and I quote, "A long period of conditioning means that we often fail to see elitism even when it is staring at us in the face." Although what he said then was not something new, such frank admission by an insider from one of the oldest schools in Singapore is certainly noteworthy. But what struck me most in that speech was the challenge he put forth. He went on to say, "What really matters more now is what we do with this reality and knowledge." So, how can we address this inequality and the lack of diversity in our schools to prevent a class divide from taking root in our society?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. One of the key priorities the President set in her maiden Address was for Singaporeans to live in a fair and just society based on meritocracy, and at the same time, to strive to leave no one behind. This aspiration of building an inclusive society is a familiar reframe in this Chamber. At each change of leadership or milestone in our political calendar, it is prudent for this Government to take stock of the well-being of Singaporeans from all strata of society to ensure no one gets left behind. But beyond such periodic refrain, I certainly welcome the challenge put forth by the President for this Government to go for both changes this time and not to contend with marginal tweaks in the next phase of our nationhood. While we can choose to live in awe and respect of what our pioneer generation had achieved, we certainly should not be tempted to dwell in the shadows of the past just to avoid rocking the boat. We also should not be tempted to just apply a patchwork of measures to fix any system that is out of sync with the changing times, in the hope that some of the problems will go away. The lack of resolve to look into certain problems from a fresh angle can have serious consequences because lives are impacted by policies and we cannot turn back time. Sir, the call by the President for the new leadership to tackle inequality vigorously is a timely reminder for a rapidly changing world. Mr Speaker, despite the tension rhetoric and measure given to address the issue of building an inclusive society, a new study released by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) on social capital in Singapore late last year seems to indicate that class divide has descended on our society.”
“This arrangement should apply to anchor operators, especially since they are given subsidies and grants to operate childcare centres for the sole purpose of serving the new estate and the surrounding community. At this point, I would like to declare my interest as my wife has an interest in special needs childcare. Rising Childcare and Infant Care Fees”
“Sir, like many residents, I welcome new estates for their inclusiveness in providing much needed facilities at SACs and childcare centres at the void deck. Residents at the two new estates in Hougang spoke about the convenience of having such facilities within a stone's throw from where they live. Some young parents told me part of the reason they bought a flat in this estate was predicated on the availability of childcare facilities in the neighbourhood. However, the number of places available at these childcare centres is limited due, in part, to high demand and also to the size of the centre. Thus, some residents were disappointed to find out that despite having a childcare centre next door, enrolment is not a given. Some residents shared that they even attempted to apply for a place for their children before these centres were completed or way before the centre opened their doors for registration, but were always met with a waiting list. In March 2015, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) was reported to have said that the agency does monitor local demand and works closely with HDB on the issue of childcare places. It said, "the new estates with more young families, childcare centres are pre-built into new Build-To-Order (BTO) developments to cater to demand ahead of time". Thus, I would like to find out from the Ministry whether such demand is adequately met in new estates. Furthermore, in the planning of such highly sought after facilities, could the Ministry ensure that residents living nearest to these childcare centres get some priority for admission?”
“Chairman, I have a question for the Senior Minister of State. Would the Senior Minister of State share why LTA is not in favour of reducing the number of signalised junctions with shared green time from 90%, in view of the fact that such junctions do present a safety concern for all road users, apart from the given answer of ensuring a smoother flow of traffic, which, for some urban junctions, it is never an issue?”
“Although the Ministry did not have the breakdown of whether these accidents happened at what type of junctions, 90% of our signalised junctions are programmed with shared green time. I am sure there are many unreported near misses as well. Last October, LTA was reported to be taking steps to make such signalised junctions safer after some pedestrians were involved in vehicles knocking down the pedestrians who had the right of way came to light. There were two cases cited in the news, one of which was fatal. It was reported that the fatal accident happened at a signalised junction with shared green time. Not only are pedestrians not protected at such junctions, they may also be assigned 15% blame, as a Court of Appeal ruling in 2016 had shown, even though the lights were in their favour. Sir, if the green-man signal at such junctions cannot guarantee safety for pedestrians, then the anomaly must be resolved. The President of the Automobile Association of Singapore was quoted to have said, “Overseas researchers have shown that pedestrians are better protected with the implementation of split-phase lights. Statistics have also shown that there is a larger decline in pedestrian incidents as well as multi-vehicle crashes when green-man time is not shared”. I truly believe that ensuring a smoother flow of traffic on our roads will not cultivate a road safety culture. Enforcing a little patience by doing away with shared green time at signalised junctions, on the other hand, will ensure road safety by default.”