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 8 of 8.
“In life, it is a terrible thing to waste on the road no matter how the statistics read. And while we can continue to teach our young about road safety, we must take caution that no amount of education can prevent children from running across the roads on impulse. Although there are fewer fatal and injury accidents in 2012, we must always ensure our roads remain safe for all users, especially for vulnerable groups like elderly and young pedestrians. It does not really matter who has the right of way because when flesh and metal collide, the consequences are devastating. Today, I wish to speak on three areas of concern, namely, school zone, zebra crossing and signalised junction. The LTA has launched a zero-accident movement for its contractors to tighten up safety processes at their worksite in 2012. Likewise, can LTA start a zero-accident movement for our school zones as well? Page: 29 The update by the Second Minister for Home Affairs last February showed a decline in the number of accidents within school zones involving injury or fatality. There were 16 accidents in 2012, down from 28 the previous year. Can we reduce the number to zero? I believe we can. Thus, I propose we should make it mandatory for primary schools to have dedicated school-crossing patrol wardens at critical school hours. Having a warden is the only way to ensure vehicles travelling in both directions will stop and remain stationary at the zebra crossing until the whole crossing is clear, as stipulated in our Road Traffic Act. For signalised pedestrian crossing, the warden can also ensure children will not attempt to cross the road in an unsafe manner. Second, all zebra crossings should be raised island-wide with speed-regulating stripes leading to and away from such crossings.”
“I welcome the move by the Government to provide temporary housing for first-timer married couples with or without children. I would like to ask HDB what other measures are there to help Singaporeans, some of whom are caught in between policies to find a place to call home, whether on a temporary or long-term basis. Can HDB look into relaxing the income ceiling criteria for families with children for a start? Can HDB relax its family nucleus criteria for single parents with young children born out of wedlock as well?”
“Madam, although the Government will continue to encourage all Singaporeans to own their homes, there will always be a group of Singaporeans who are unable to do so for various reasons. For these Singaporeans, the only option left is either to rent from the open market or HDB. For families with household income of $2,000 and below, renting a flat from the open market is not a financially prudent thing to do. The latest median rent for a 3-room flat ranges from $1,750-$2,400, depending on location. For some of Page: 32 these families with young children and belongings, renting just a room is also not a conducive arrangement. Another group of Singaporeans who needs assistance in housing are single parents with children born out of wedlock. For low-wage earners in this group, renting a room is already a strain on their pockets, as the children grow and the need for bigger space arises. Renting a small flat from the open market is virtually out of reach. A third group of Singaporeans are the elderly with no or very little income. Some have no children while others cannot depend on their children. In the above examples, some of the families are waiting for their BTO flats while some are technically homeless. Some are finding it hard to make ends meet renting room from the open market while others are living on the goodwill of their relatives and friends to house them temporarily. Some families are barred from renting because one of the partners may have sold a flat or two due to previous broken marriages. Some are barred because the children are born out of wedlock and they do not constitute a family nucleus. Some basically do not qualify because of the household income ceiling. Budget 2013 has promised to do more for Singaporeans and to build a more inclusive society.”
“We must make haste to ensure such old-world charms and traits will not become a relic of an era gone by. Respecting the Culture of Heritage Areas”
“Madam, like many Singaporeans, my family moved into a HDB estate in the early 1970s. It was not easy for many of us, being kampung dwellers, to adapt to a new and strange high-rise living environment. I remember one family brought along the chickens to live with them. In the early years, HDB did well to ensure resettled residents will not need to adjust too much to living in a concrete jungle. So, there were shops below most of the flats and a new market and hawker centre nearby. To a certain extent, the planners tried their best to transplant our way of life in the kampungs to the HDB estates. Some semblances of kampung life continued in the local provision shop, the corner coffee shops, the wet market, the hawker centre and even the tiny convenience store at the void deck. But such simple amenities are sorely missed in the new estates. A visit to Punggol East early this year gave me the feeling that future HDB estates will see less and less of such amenities. If you were to take a tour of the older estates today, you will see a world of difference. You will also feel the heartbeat of the Page: 17 community around those simple amenities built years ago for the benefit of the residents. As we embark to remake Singapore, I urge the Ministry to incorporate the heartbeat of old Singapore into the design of new towns. I also urge the Ministry to do the same to existing estates lacking in such amenities in the next phase of estate renewal. Every precinct should house some neighbourhood shops, eateries or even just a small convenience store at the void deck. We must try to preserve what is important to keep our way of life, culture and community growing. Such efforts should not be driven purely by commercial considerations.”
“Thus, HDB must acknowledge that the designs of some older flats are complicated to begin with and that implementing LUP for those types of flats will lead to rising maintenance cost. Residents and Town Councils are already made to co-pay for these new lifts, so they should not be made to bear additional increases in lift maintenance costs due to a strange Page: 154 design decision taken by HDB in the past. Preliminary estimates for some LUP blocks in Hougang alone have already seen a doubling of the routine maintenance cost for the newly added lifts. I am sure other Town Councils will also experience a phenomenal rise in maintenance cost for those LUP blocks that ended up with more lifts than before. I, therefore, call upon HDB to review and raise its grant for 3-room, 4-room and even 5-room LUP flats to take into consideration the additional cost required to maintain those flats with additional LUP lifts. Make Every Home Lift-accessible”
“Sir, while having lift access on every floor is a given for new HDB flats, many residents living in flats built before 1990 have to live without the convenience due to what HDB claimed was "to meet demand for privacy". While HDB did not reveal how it arrived at that conclusion, that decision impacted many residents, especially the elderly and the disabled. The Lift Upgrading Progamme (LUP) was subsequently rolled out to address the lift access issue. The LUP provides direct lift access to those pre-1990 flats but it comes with a heavy price that Town Councils and residents will have to bear going forward. The LUP, while providing convenience to residents, has created a whole new set of issues to contend with. Some flats had to open up another doorway in the living room in order to access the new LUP lifts. Other oddities of LUP include lift landings with no escape stairwells and emergency buttons on the inside and outside of the lifts. The emergency button outside the lift is required because residents can get trapped outside the lift lobby as there is no escape stairwell provided in the LUP design for some of these flats. Maintaining lift lobbies for some LUP flats has also become a challenge. Without a stairwell and water point, washing the lift landings is now a tedious and time-consuming process. To add to the maintenance cost, some flats ended up with 10 to 14 lifts per block, up from three to four lifts before LUP. However, the LUP anomalies I have mentioned are not found across the board. Some better designed flats implemented direct lift access without increasing the number of lifts.”
“For non-cable subscribers, if they want to buy a dedicated set top box, how much would it cost? Is there any indicative price? Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: The price that we obtained from the market – the total (the set top box plus the antenna) is between $80 and $100.”
“The Minister mentioned about set top boxes to receive digital signals. Are those integrated set top boxes, in a sense, where you do not need to get another set top box from the cable TV? The second question is on teletext services. Will they be discontinued once the analog system is stopped? Would that be continued on a digital platform? And would you still allow people to use the vertical blanking interval lines on the analog signal for broadcasting data in the old system? Would you just shut it down or are you going to lease it out? Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: The set top box that I referred to is to allow you to use your existing TV to receive the digital signal. If you have cable TV with the set top box from the supplier, you do not need it. So, at the moment, if you are on SCV and you have a high-definition set top box, you can receive programmes in digital and high-definition. On the Member's second question about whether or not other services on the analog system will be switched off, I will have to check this with MediaCorp. But our concern at the moment is only the free-to-air programming that we have now provided thus far through the seven channels. That will switch on to digital. I think, invariably, everything will have to go on to the digital platform, but if he allows me to check with MediaCorp on some of these services, I will get back to him on this particular point.”
“Low-income families especially would be hardest hit by any price movement, no matter how small, because you do not have any margin for error when budgeting for living expenses. A trip to the doctor, a rise in rental, an increase Page: 68 in food prices, or even a day on medical leave will spell trouble for these families. Looking at the latest report on wages, we have about 186,000 people earning $800 and below. I urge the Government to look into improving their lives as we restructure our economy. How we care for the weak, the disabled, the needy, and the least will determine how much we have progressed as a developed nation. 2.53 pm”
“While NTUC Foodfare is touted as a social co-operative, it is still a "members only" organisation. To enjoy special prices and value meals, you need to be a union member. If the co-operative is enjoying subsidised rental, then it must benefit all. I am sure inflation bites everyone, not just NTUC union members. The cost pressures on cooked food prices are rentals, staff cost, utilities and ingredient costs. As long as NEA keeps rental reasonable or subsidised, any enterprising Singaporean hawker would have a fair chance to keep cooked food prices affordable. First and second-generation hawkers on subsidised rentals do sell cheaper food items when compared to commercialised food stalls. I know of one such food stall along Jalan Bukit Merah that sells very delectable vegetarian food. The stall is owner-operated, and has three local staff. It has the cheapest plate of vegetarian bee hoon. It is only $1.50 complete with ingredients, like cabbage, mock char siew, crispy bean curd skins and condiments. The stall has been selling vegetarian bee hoon at cheap prices for the longest time. It is neither a no-frill meal nor a marketing gimmick. And you do not need to be an NTUC union member, Public Assistance cardholder, or senior citizen to enjoy cheap and healthy food. This is what we need in a hawker centre to fight inflation. Fix the rental of these new stalls, say, at $320 a month, which is the high-end of the subsidised rental, and allow Singaporeans to ballot for them. This will create jobs, keep hawker food affordable and ensure Singaporeans, young and old, remain economically active. Cost of living affects everyone.”
“I am sure some Members of Parliament in this House have written to HDB to appeal for a stay or review of the rental rates on behalf of your residents. I believe this Government can do more to ensure that when the salaries of low-wage workers are finally moving up, their celebration will not be short-lived. The 2.7 times jump in the published rental rates from $33 to $90 a month for someone whose salary crosses the $800 mark is just too drastic to begin with. I urge the Ministry to look into this and come up with a more reasonable tier so that low-wage workers living in rental flats can truly appreciate the benefit of Budget 2013 and any wage increments that come with it. This is the least the Government can do for these Singaporeans to make up for those lost years of their working lives earning meagre salaries by helping Singapore to grow. Page: 67 Next, I wish to talk about one component of inflation which Singaporeans like a lot, that is, food. Many Singaporeans eat out at hawker centres. Most of them, especially low-wage workers, would have an inkling of what inflation is like from their cup of coffee or plate of chicken rice they order at meal time. When the Minister announced that 10 new hawker centres would be built and run on a not-for-profit basis in 2011, I thought it would be a good idea to offer these stalls to enterprising or unemployed Singaporeans, young or old, to try their hands at running a small business selling affordable cooked food. My hope was short-lived as it was later made known that NTUC Foodfare, a social co-operative, was appointed to run the first new hawker centre in Bukit Panjang. Nonetheless, I still hope the Government will open the remaining nine new hawker centres to enterprising Singaporeans to run as small businesses on their own.”
“Therefore, I call upon the Government to monitor the situation closely and raise the cash component of WIS, if necessary, so that our low-wage workers do not have to skip a meal or medical appointment just to make ends meet. Madam, while the Budget has addressed the issue of saving more for retirement for low-wage workers by increasing their CPF contribution rate, it has not addressed much on containing the rising cost of living. With rising income, low-wage workers living in rental flats will see a corresponding increase in rental rates. Take the example of the 45-year-old low-wage worker again. If his employer decides to adopt the NWC guideline for 2012/2013, to give a $50 wage increase to those earning up to $1,000, his salary would be $850 a month. But, unfortunately, if he is living in a 1-room rental flat, his rent will also go up by at least $57 − from $33 a month to about $90 a month. So, the entire net increase of $40 in his take home pay is not even enough to service his new rental. We must also bear in mind that this low-wage worker is taking home less pay now because his CPF contribution rate has been revised from 17% to 20%. Factoring in the $70 from his maximum WIS payout, and the subsequent increase in rental, he is better off forgoing the NWC recommended wage increase because he will end up $17 poorer every month. Most low-wage workers living in rental flats will have mixed feelings about having pay rise. What the "left hand giveth, the right hand taketh away" is probably what some of them will feel. The same 45-year-old worker can only savour his wage increase until his existing rental contract runs out. After that, like many of his peers, he would receive a "rental shock" when his contract comes up for renewal.”
“The example of the 45-year-old earning $800 a month cited in the Budget speech will see his take home pay shrink by 3.5% or $28 after factoring the revised employee CPF contribution rate. Using the online Workfare calculator, the difference between the current and new maximum WIS payout for this worker is about $38. So, effectively, this 45-year-old low wage worker will see an increase of only 1.4% in take home pay or an extra $10 a month for Budget 2013. With core inflation expected to average 2%-3% for the whole of 2013, the extra $10 a month is as good as gone. Although there are measures like GST vouchers and S&CC rebates to help Singaporean families cope with rising cost of living, having some cash at hand before the next pay day comes is what low-income families would welcome more. I am also not too optimistic that the Wage Credit Scheme (WCS) is going to benefit low-wage workers significantly and in the near term. These workers are traditionally hired by companies with low productivity and profitability, and may be heavily dependent on cheap foreign labour to stay afloat. Would these employers want to further erode their profit margin by participating in a state-funded wage scheme, knowing very well that 60% of the pay increase would still come out from their own pockets? The tenet of increasing the cash component of WIS and introducing the WCS is to ensure low-wage workers will have more disposable cash to beat inflation. Page: 66 While the WIS is a sure thing, the WCS is not. If employers do not warm up to the Wage Credit Scheme for low-wage workers, their salary will remain stagnant again.”
“Mdm Speaker, many Members in this House have praised meritocracy and shared stories of how the system has brought them to where they are today. But we are humans and who we are and what we become is also determined by the people around us and the Page: 65 environment we live in. So, if you are stuck in a deep hole, no amount of talent or ability is going to get you out of that predicament if no one lends you a helping hand or throws you a lifeline to get you out of there. So, I am pleased to know that this Government recognises that meritocracy has its limits in sustaining social mobility, that it is going to do more to ensure a fair and an inclusive society and that it will take steps to mitigate the growing income inequality in our country. To low-income families, it does not matter whether we should view our high Gini Coefficient in the context of a global city or a country. A hard day's work must equate to a fair living wage. In short, the wage must make ends meet and allow for some cash savings for emergency use and for the little indulgence in eating out or shopping once in a while. Low-wage workers have seen their wages stagnated in the last decade. These Singaporeans will see their wages shrink further when they hit their mid-40s. For them, when it rains, it pours because low-wage workers will also be hit with lower employer CPF contribution once they reach 35 years old. I, therefore, welcome the restoration of the CPF rates for these workers as announced in Budget 2013. The increase in Workfare Income Supplement payout with 40% of it in cash is also a welcome measure, but I urge the Government to seriously think about increasing the cash component to 50% or more for good reasons.”
“I am sure the will of the people Page: 55 can be felt in your Meet-the-People (MPS), dialogue sessions, feedback sessions and even at the recent polls. We cannot change the past but we can change the future. For that, I oppose the Motion. 2.50 pm”
“What are our priorities? In the pursuit of growth, this Government has acknowledged that it had neglected to pay close attention to the comfort level of the Singaporean core in areas like transport, housing and other environmental and cultural issues. While the people should give the Government some time to fix its 20/20 foresight, the Government should also give the people more time to experience what it is really like to live in a country with 5.3 million people with all the shortcomings fixed. Because when yesterday's problems are not fixed, the vision for a better tomorrow is a hard sell. It is a "no sell". The irony of the Mercer survey is that Singapore is ranked No 1 in infrastructure, but 25th in quality of living. What that means to me in plain English is that we are way too overcrowded here. This Government may have put its heart and soul into building a dynamic economy for people to come from all over the world to make money here, but has it done the same to building our nation? In this context, the Workers' Party is asking the Government to do the hard things first, that is, to put its heart and soul to growing the TFR. When young Singaporeans want to have more children here, we would have a nation to call home. Opening the tap to immigrants is easy. This Government has grown our population by about a million a decade since 1991 with relative speed and ease. We all take different risks in life. This Government wants Singapore to take a risk with 6.9 million people. We, the Workers' Party, want to work with a smaller number and a stronger emphasis on the Singaporean Core. But no matter what numbers we project, the Government of the day has to subject itself to do the will of the people who elected it.”
“When this Government allocates only 7% of the land to accommodate 82% of the resident population, how do you think Singaporeans whom the White Paper addresses as the core of our society and the heart of our nation would feel at the prospect of living with 6.9 million people by 2030? How liveable can Singapore be going forward with more and more people? According to Forbes report in 2012, the most stressful city in the United States is also among the biggest and the densest. How is this Government going to convince our young people to stay and procreate when commuting to work every day is such a stressful thing to do? I read with deep concern that this Government intends to optimise our land, limited land space, just to accommodate 6.9 million people by building more housing units in mature estates, wherever pockets of housing land it can find. Mdm Speaker, the Government sees these pockets of land as opportunities but Page: 54 many of us see these as essential green spaces to keep the sanity of living in a concrete jungle in check. If every piece of green space in a mature estate is measured by a number or value, then we have missed the meaning of quality of life. The top 10 cities in the Mercer 2012 Quality of Living Index all have lower population density than Singapore, with the exception of Geneva, Switzerland. Geneva is nestled in a region of beautiful lakes, views and mountains for citizens to escape to, away from the stress of high density urban living. We do not have the luxury of such open spaces. So, we should preserve whatever pockets of greenery out there, especially in mature estates, so as to mitigate the stress of living in one of the densest cities in the world. Different cities in the world have different priorities to become liveable and sustainable.”
“If the experience in 1991 and 2001 is anything to go by, the 6.9 million-projection may not be a worst-case scenario but could well be the worst nightmare for Singapore come 2030. The trust between the people and the Government had been shaken twice because the line between the projected population and the target population is no longer distinct. Singaporeans do not want to be shaken a third time. Already we have one of the highest population density in the world, and increasing our population further cannot be good for liveability. It cannot be good for quality of life. This Government has tried to be creative with statistics to allay the fear that we might go the way of Hong Kong and pack Singaporeans into tiny apartments when our population hits 6.9 million. But we are already packed like sardines everywhere today – in the trains, buses, hawker centres, shopping centres and more. Any population increase above 6 million is just unthinkable. If we were to compute the population density for public housing alone, we will understand how dense it is to live in Singapore today. In 2010, it was reported that 82% of our resident population, or 3.1 million, live in HDB flats. The 2010 figure on land use shows that public housing took up only 7% of the total land mass or about 5,000 hectares in Singapore. This gives us a staggering actual population density of 62,000 people per kilometre square for public housing alone. We even beat the densest district in Hong Kong which comes in at slightly above 55,000 per kilometre square.”
“In 2007, the ex-Minister for National Development quickly revised the long-term population projection to 6.5 million, which is at the low end of the projected population for 2030 in the Population White Paper. Today, Singaporeans are confronted with a stark population projection again. The Population White Paper, unlike the 40- to 50-year concept plan, has projected our population to hit 6.5 million to 6.9 million over a period of just 18 years, and the percentage of the Singaporean Core would be almost half. Repeating like clockwork, the Minister for National Development was quick to point out that the 6.9 million is not a target but a worst-case scenario. His predecessor has this to add when he raised the long-term population projection to 6.5 million; the ex-Minister said in 2007 that "the Government has decided that 6.5 million is a realistic number for the next 40 to 50 years. Whether and when we achieve this figure will depend on many factors." If such 40- to 50-year worst-case scenarios can manifest in less than 10 years, from projection twice, Singaporeans have every good reason to worry about the 6.9 million-projection going forward. Over the last two decades, this Government has been likened to run Singapore like a company due to its opportunistic approach to grow at all cost. It has grown our population by almost a million a decade since 1991. It did not matter if the infrastructures were not up to scratch, opportunities and money came first. Based on the upper end figure in the White Paper, our population is again expected to grow by about a million a decade until 2030; and that the Page: 53 Singaporean Core will drop to almost 50%. The White Paper is not maintaining a strong Singaporean Core; it is shrinking it further.”
“Mdm Speaker, from day one when the Population White Paper was released, reaction from the ground is swift and negative. Whether the 6.9-million figure is a population projection or target, the White Paper is still a roadmap for Singapore's population policy from now to 2030. The Government has released a few such roadmaps in the past under the URA concept plan. We were told in this House the population projection in those plans are based on foreseeable trends in economic growth, fertility rate, migration rate and so on over a long period of 40 to 50 years. But alarmingly, this Government has developed a knack for getting the population projection wrong; not in the numbers but in the time taken to reach those numbers. In the 1991 concept plan, this Government was doing long-term planning based on a population figure of four million. We started the decade with three million and a Singaporean Core of 86%. We ended the decade with four million people Page: 52 and a Singaporean Core at 74%. In 2001, this Government put up another concept plan with a higher population projection of 5.5 million as a basis for land use and transportation planning. Again, at that time, we were told in this House that the projected population figure over a period of 40 to 50 years was not a target but a planning parameter, or what is known in recent days as a worst-case scenario. By 2010, in a short span of 10 years we reached 91% of the 2001 projected worst case scenario population with 30 to 40 years to spare. Our Singaporean Core went down by another 10 percentage point, to 64%. What was projected to happen in 40 to 50 years in 1991 and 2001 became a reality in less than one-quarter of the time envisaged.”
“Is the 7% based on 2010 data that were released recently?”
“Just a clarification. For the premium player, the Minister said that the annual levy is also, in a way, designed for them. The confusion is caused when on one side you have the day levy which is $100, on the other side, the annual levy – when you divide it by 365, it is about $5.50. So, it does not look like a safeguard actually. I mean, if the whole thing were to be separated, then it makes more sense. That is what I want to know. If the annual levy is meant for the premium player, then it should not be called a safeguard. Whether it is 1% or 5%, it is also a loophole. It is just a matter of how tolerant we are of the loophole.”
“These unscrupulous people are likely to target gamblers who have lost money and engage in illegal lending activities. Another group that should be banned from casinos are debtors who have borrowed money from loan sharks before. These debtors turn to illegal lenders precisely because they are facing financial difficulties. Some residents tell me, many of their relatives, friends and business partners who are addicted to gambling turn to loan sharks, and lose interest in their work and business. Recently, another resident lamented that he has been harassed by loan sharks for the past 10 years, not because he borrowed money or owed money, but because his neighbour next door often borrowed money to visit the casinos. He does not understand why the Government cannot ban people like his neighbour from entering the casinos. Page: 1407 Hence, for their sake, and for the sake of their families and neighbours, the law should ban these people who borrow from loan sharks from entering the casinos. Finally, we should also consider imposing a ban on those who have acted as runners for loan sharks, to prevent them from entering the casinos. Some have been forced into acting as runners, while others have done it voluntarily, both should be banned from the casinos. They have displayed weaknesses in their character and allowing them to continue gambling will cause them to repeat their mistakes. We may not be able to find a perfect solution to prevent undesirable individuals from entering the casinos. Most importantly, Singaporeans must stay away from the casinos on their own initiative. I still hope that the authorities can ban loan sharks, loan shark runners and those who borrow money from them from entering the casinos. 5.09 pm”
“What are the odds of Singaporeans winning the lion's share of the jobs and contracts available at the casinos or is it going to be the same old story again – the house always wins? Page: 1406 5.05 pm Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon) (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech on Pg 1434.] Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amendment Bill, so long as it strengthens the safety net, ensures that Singaporeans who enter the casinos can afford to take the risk of losing and will not cause unnecessary duress to their families. We have witnessed how greed has destroyed the future of many. Despite repeated warnings by the Government on fraud cases and the perils of seeking instant benefits, many people still succumbed to temptations at gambling tables. It appears that there are some who will risk everything and believe that this is a quick way to make a fortune. Our two integrated resorts are not just gambling resorts. When Singapore decided to build the integrated resorts, it has stated clearly that the gambling component is mainly targeted at tourists, and not Singaporeans. Of course, there are also some Singaporeans who will choose to try their luck at casinos. The Casino Control Act also provides safety measures so that families can apply for exclusion orders. At the same time, among various new additional measures, I am pleased to see that the National Council for Problem Gambling will be authorised to limit the number of visits to casinos by Singaporeans. In my opinion, there is another group of people who should be banned from the casinos, and they are the loan sharks and all others related to loan sharks, for example, their debtors and runners. The law should ban loan sharks involved in illegal moneylending activities from entering the casinos.”
“A recent report in the New York Daily News said the Resorts World Casino New York City fell short of the promise it made in mid-2011 to hire 70% to 80% of its staff from the borough of Queens. The Daily News investigation also found that residents do not get a proportionate share of high-ranking management jobs at the casino. Is this Government keeping a close watch over the promises made by the casinos to create jobs for Singaporeans? I urge this Government to release casino employment data in a term that all Singaporeans can understand and appreciate. Telling the people that the casinos hire 22,000 employees does not square well with the Government's initiative to make the distinction between Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans sharper. And what other benefits have the casinos brought on? Can the Government publish more data to substantiate the benefits? How many local SMEs and suppliers are doing roaring business with the casinos? What is their percentage share of the supply chain in dollars and cents? Can the Government be more transparent in providing regular updates on gaming revenues and social impact caused by the casinos? The Prime Minister said in 2005 that "to make an informed decision, we needed to understand what exactly an IR would entail. What sort of investment would it be? What benefits would it bring? We needed information to decide." Mr Speaker, seven years have passed and the casinos are fully operational. Singaporeans, too, needed information now to decide if the casinos have made an impact in their lives and in the society. The reality today is that the Government has asked Singaporeans to gamble big on the success and benefits of having casinos on our shores.”
“Sir, while the review of the Casino Control Act is timely, the Government must also review the economic benefits promised by the casino operators. When this House debated on the casino proposal in 2005, both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade and Industry had said that the two casinos will create 35,000 jobs of which more than 10,000 are direct employment jobs. Almost three years have passed since the casinos opened their doors to roaring business. How many Singaporeans have they hired? What kind of jobs have they given to Singaporeans? To date, those numbers remain a mystery. Page: 1405 A year ago, we were told in this House that employment figures for casinos, breakdown by foreigners, PRs and Singaporeans, are protected under the Statistics Act and Singaporeans only need to know that 70% of the direct hire by the casinos are locals, a term which refers to Singapore citizens and PRs. A year later, we found out from the press that 70% of the direct hire by the casinos are actually all Singaporeans. The reports even break down the numbers by casino. My question is: could the Acting Manpower Minister verify these numbers which are supposedly protected under the Statistics Act, as mentioned by his predecessor in October 2011? If yes, I find it unacceptable that such information cannot be revealed in Parliament under the guise of the Statistics Act while the press is free to report on these numbers. And why are we protecting these numbers in the first place? If we allowed the casinos to make money here, surely it is of public interest to know if they are making money at the expense of jobs for Singaporeans. We are not alone in worrying about jobs for our own people when a casino comes to town.”
“The fact that this Government collected over half a billion dollars in entry levies since the casinos become operational more than two years ago can only mean one thing: we need to relook at the safeguards. The day levy is a safeguard. The annual levy is a loophole. I urge the Government to seriously consider doing away with the annual levy. Next, it may be time for us to tighten the issue of soft advertising by the casinos under the guise of sponsorships and donations. I once came across a residents' corner decked out with large red lanterns with Resorts World Sentosa printed on it. We all know what Resorts World and Sands are renowned for and they are definitely not about ferris wheel or art museum. These companies are famous for one thing and one thing only – operating casinos. Do we want to allow these casinos to soft-sell their brand name, trademark or service mark, as these are identical to the Integrated Resorts which the casinos are a part of? The Casino Regulatory Authority must state clearly what the casinos can do under the guise of sponsorship and donation; more so when their names are synonymous with casino gambling. It is for this same reason we do not see Philip Morris or Marlboro lanterns in our estates. We are dealing with seasoned casino moguls here. I am sure these people will not hesitate to try their luck at anything to have market share and they have a deep pocket to do so. While I do believe we should allow some leeway for the casinos to promote the non-gaming parts of their business, we must be mindful that beneath the façade of the family-oriented Integrated Resorts lies a vice that has brought untold misery to many families around the world. In this instant, the CRA must be clear on what the casinos can do in the area of soft advertising.”
“What social safeguard will the Visit Limit achieve in the long run? If the person is deemed at risk in gambling addiction, will limiting the patron's visit to the casino help or make any social sense? When you mix the convenience of a casino next door with a cheap entry levy in a densely populated place, the resulting concoction is not only potent but extremely harmful – potent to the gaming business but harmful to the society. It was reported in the New York Times that the Resorts World Casino New York, which opened last fall, made more money from electronic slot machines than those in any of the 12 casinos in nearby Atlantic City or in Connecticut. The article says the success of the casino, the only one in the five boroughs of New York, suggests that no matter how luxurious the accommodation or exciting the entertaining, nothing appeals more to gamblers than a casino that is nearby. The Director of the University of Nevada Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming said, "Convenience and location are the driving factors today. If you put a casino in a high density population like Queens, you will do well." Page: 1404 Sir, we cannot relocate the extremely profitable casinos but we can definitely relook at the ineffective entry levy control. I am not the first to call for the removal of the annual levy and I am sure I will not be the last. Is the annual levy an untouchable pre-condition cast in stone in agreement with the operators that this Government can do nothing with it except to come up with measures like Visit Limit to counter the negative impact of the misguided entry control? Removing the annual levy would be a better option than to introduce a visit limit to safeguard gamblers at risk.”
“Sir, the review of the Casino Control Act is timely after almost three years of experience in regulating and managing the two casinos. The Casino Control (Amendment) Bill has introduced a new measure called "Visit Limits" to minimise the social impact of casino gambling. Currently, there are two social safeguards that deal directly with casino entry – an exclusion system and the imposition of an entry levy. The exclusion system is clear cut and easily understood. The entry levy safeguard, unfortunately, creates a dichotomy between the intention of the day levy and that of the annual levy. While the $100 a day levy will make people think twice about making frequent visits to the casinos, the $2,000 annual levy will encourage gamblers at risk, to visit the casinos at will. If you enjoy gambling, the choice is a no-brainer between paying $100 or $5.50 a day to have a go at Lady Luck. And every gambler knows that to recoup the annual levy paid, he would have to visit the casino at least 20 times a year. So, what is the resulting effect of the annual levy? It encourages frequent visits to the casino and not the other way around. The annual levy makes daily visits to the casinos ever cheaper than to visit the latest Gardens by the Bay attractions. The average levy per day is even cheaper than a meal at the fancy food-court outside the casino. The truth is the annual levy is undoing everything the day levy is trying to do, and that is to be an effective social safeguard against problem gambling. It is not too difficult to see that the new Visit Limit measures are probably targeted at mainly gamblers who bought the annual levy. But, Sir, if we know someone who is going to get addicted to drugs, do we limit the person's intake of drugs to address the issue?”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. I just have one question. Based on the timeframe that has been stated – one year from announcement to polling and then two and a half years from polling to construction – there are a couple of batches in Hougang that are way overdue. Some batches have started – Batch 8, Batch 10 – but Batch 9, which is the 700 cluster, which was announced in October 2010, I would like to find out whether the Ministry would still be able to complete their LUP on time by 2014?”
“As a point of clarification, is it a standard protocol that all injured and national servicemen will be sent to a military medical centre before they are sent to the hospital, regardless of how serious the injuries are, because, sometimes, time is of the essence?”
“The Minister said that most of the cost overrun came from Downtown Line Stage 1, and that is actually the shortest line with six stations. Can the Minister explain this?”
“I thank the Minister for the answer. I have two supplementary questions. First, how many of the contracts were actually awarded to the lowest bidder? Second, in 2007, the ex-Minister of State for Transport said in Parliament that LTA was reviewing whether some stations required more than one entrance and making stations more user-friendly and handicap-friendly, and that any enhanced standards would also apply to the Downtown Line. Immediately after that, Downtown Line Stage 1 was started in about 2008. So, were those changes made known or incorporated into the tender?”
“I once volunteered for a VWO which specialises in helping migrant workers and I was given such a feedback as well. MOM has enough legislation to deal with errant employers and foreign workers' abuses but, for some reasons, it was slow or reluctant to bite. Page: 739 With this amendment, I urge the MOM to step up its enforcement. Going forward, MOM should also look into promoting responsible employment, especially for employers of low-wage migrant workers. While enforcement has a role to play, a mindset change will have a bigger impact on our society as a whole. Singapore is a First World country and we should reflect that in the way we treat migrant workers. With that, I rise in support of the Bill. 3.41 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in the pursuit of economic growth, the business of bringing in migrant foreign workers has spawned into a business that has a life of its own. The very process of bringing in these workers is so lucrative that it does not matter if there are matching jobs for them. For some unscrupulous agents, it does not even matter if there are any jobs for these workers, for there is money to be made just by landing them here on our shores. And this lucrative business of bringing in migrant workers alone unwittingly benefits the Government as well because every worker comes with a levy to be paid on the dot, on the 17th of each month by GIRO, regardless of whether there are matching jobs or any jobs for these workers or not. For some of these low-wage workers, the dream of providing a better life for their families back home became a nightmare of unpaid wages, unimaginable living conditions and unending disputes with employers over wages upon repatriation orders. We have heard and read horror stories about how some of these migrant workers are being treated, and sometimes abandoned, the moment injuries befall them. It is very sad to know that some of these workers already living in poverty back home and going into debt in order to make the trip here will end up worse than ever before because of some unscrupulous agents and errant employers. Although MOM has no shortage of legislation to act against errant employers, to begin with, I believe many Singaporeans, NGOs and VWOs will welcome the amendments in the Employment of Foreign Manpower Bill to strengthen enforcement capabilities and address the abuses and problems faced by low-wage migrant workers. MOM has been criticised by some NGOs for not doing enough to help these low-wage workers in the past.”