Pritam Singh
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, I hear what the Minister has said. I am also sure the Minister has understood where the Workers' Party Members of Parliament are coming from. And I also would like to add that as the Opposition, we come to this House to scrutinise Bills and it is our duty to ask those questions.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I am empathetic to the arguments of efficiency and ensuring that patients can see a polyclinic doctor or consultation as quickly as possible. I understand the Senior Minister of State mentioned it is important to try and make a make an appointment so that your waiting time is within a certain period.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just a question for the Minister of State. Does the Ministry capture the total amount of monies recovered from Singaporeans who are victims of scams?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a point of order. I believe the Senior Minister of State, in his wrapping-up speech, referred to a speech made by a Member who did not deliver a speech in Parliament on the Bill, that is, hon Member Ms Mariam Jaafar. I would just like to confirm whether that is as per the Standing Orders of Parliament.”
“Much obliged, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the Sitting on 7 April 2026, I rose to seek a clarification on the joint Ministerial Statement on the situation in the Middle East.”
“Thank you, Speaker. The Minister of State mentioned meaningful impact a few times, so I will give an example. The KPI in the Budget Book, "the percentage of patients who waited less than or at least 100 minutes for consultations at polyclinics", for example, for each fiscal year, 2023, 2024, 2025 – the number is 99%.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,762 lines we hold for Pritam Singh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 25 of 36.
“It should consider individuals, who have previously left active service to take up competitive and well-paying appointments, as members of the safety inspectorate or other safety-related outfits in the SAF. A second area of consideration for MINDEF deals with the point that in the run-up to 2030, the cohort of 18-year-olds enlisted for NS is going to get smaller. With less manpower to execute MINDEF’s mission, machines are likely to become more important, with soldiers and troops transiting to more lethal motorised and mechanised platforms, with even unmanned platforms becoming a weapon of choice. Such a shift would require a soldier to be familiar with not just soldiering fundamentals but also a mastery of the new weapons and machines under his or her charge. The type of accidents that can occur may also change, with risks of electrocution becoming more real than collisions and similar mishaps. This development inevitably points towards more time required for training, live-firing and maintenance-related duties. NSmen may also need more time to refamiliarise themselves with their equipment during in-camp training (ICT) and before exercises, with more oversight from safety coordinators and training facilitators – something the NS training system would have to accommodate. To this end, the SAF may have to throttle back on non-core, non-training-related duties, and even national ones to focus more squarely on its core mission. A final area of review must include a change in tone and culture towards safety, and this must begin at the very top. From a legislative perspective, a qualitative way to facilitate this must include a review of the Government's position on section 14 of the Government Proceedings Act.”
“Specific areas should be looked into from a fresh perspective. One approach MINDEF should consider is stretching the retirement ages of the officer and WOSE corps. Compared to many militaries around the world, there is an argument to be made that our officers, in particular, are made to retire a little too prematurely with many valuable years of experience potentially lost to make more long-lasting and valuable contributions to the organisation. The importance of deep experience for our regular commanders in foreseeing the risks of high-intensity training, mitigating for them and being better prepared to deal with unprecedented mishaps was perhaps put best by Chesley Sullenberger, the captain of the US Airways flight that landed in the Hudson River on 15 January 2009 after a catastrophic bird strike that destroyed both of the plane's engines, putting 155 lives at risk. Instead of returning his stricken plane to the airport, Sullenberger made a decision to ditch the aircraft in the river, a decision that was later extensively scrutinised but proven to be ultimately sound. He said and I quote, "For 42 years, I have been making small, regular deposits in this bank of experience, education and training. And on January 15, the balance was sufficient so that I could make a very large withdrawal." Mr Deputy Speaker, extending the time our senior commanders remain in their command appointments so that they are able to acquire deeper operational knowledge would have positive spinoffs in anticipating and preventing training incidents. In this regard, SAF should also pay particular emphasis on retaining officers and WOSEs after they retire.”
“Amongst many useful purposes, such a document could serve as an important reference for all segments of the public, including our neighbouring countries, to appreciate and understand why Singapore needs a strong and world-class military that is able to defend the sovereignty of the country. Mr Deputy Speaker, doubts about the necessity of NS weakens not just the very institution but our collective will to fight. More insidiously, the ubiquity and ever-present nature of the online media are such that an adversary can weaken our will to fight without even firing a single shot in anger by identifying the pressure points in our society’s psyche. Undermining public confidence in our citizen army is a ripe and ready strategy an adversary will employ to fulfil its national aims. Should the public lose its confidence in the SAF and support for NS is undermined, the force over-match that our military currently enjoys will be rendered irrelevant in the face of a divided public. While Singaporeans should never shy away from sharing their views and opinions on matters of public interest even if they are not mainstream, we should not lose our sense of perspective and proportion. In spite of earlier surveys highlighted in this House about the public's support for NS, the recent spate of training deaths reminds us how the status quo can be shaken very quickly. To that end, the Minister’s earlier reply to my Parliamentary Question on how the current safety review in the aftermath of CFC(NS) Pang's unfortunate passing is different from earlier ones is to be welcomed. Nevertheless, it is not possible to rule out the likelihood that there could be a number of shortcomings in the SAF training system that disrupt the balance between safety and operational readiness.”
“In such a context, Singapore’s need for a strong operationally-ready deterrent force that means business and can promise and deliver a bloody nose on any adversary becomes not just acute, but critical. The public must never forget that the institution of NS which underpins a strong SAF stands at the delivery end of that promise. Finally, the will to fight. Mr Deputy Speaker, the will to fight is an important concept that unites SAF personnel and NSmen, regardless of rank. It embodies our sense of national identity, why we regard Singapore as home and why we will be steadfast and resolute in defending the country. Building up the will to fight in a country which is not ethnically homogenous, generally affluent and where immigration is an important Government policy, is no mean feat and is always challenging. It requires constant attention and reflection. As a result of the recent incidents, some of the discussions in the aftermath of CFC(NS) Aloysius Pang's passing have the potential of damaging the institution of NS unless MINDEF steps in to decisively address broader misgivings that are simmering in the minds of some Singaporeans. Other well-meaning Singaporeans have also asked fundamental questions about NS. One of the more well-reasoned ones has sought to question why MINDEF cannot evolve to employ an all-regular force. These questions and other similar ones do come up from time to time, and it would be important for MINDEF to establish why such an outcome is or is not realistic. Some years ago, on the back of a Committee of Supply cut, I proposed that MINDEF publish a detailed defence White Paper outlining the strategic imperatives of SAF.”
“It has also prompted a significant counter-perspective – one that is shared by many NSmen, including amongst those who are currently fulfilling or have completed their NS requirements and commitments. They asked: in spite of the training incidents that occur from time to time, can Singaporeans envision a safe and secure Singapore without operationally-ready NSmen and an operationally-ready SAF? On the latter point, the recent bilateral spat between Singapore and Malaysia was raised as an example of the possibilities that could be imposed upon Singapore if not for the strong SAF that any potential adversary has to contend with. Many online commentators focused on the Mahathir factor as a reason why the sharp deterrent edge of the SAF represents a central pillar for our existence as a sovereign nation. However, the need for a strong SAF is not personality-specific or for a particular moment in time. It is, in fact, far more fundamental. The key determinant that necessitates a strong SAF is founded in our geopolitical realities. We are a small country of under six million surrounded by much larger neighbours in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) where our two closest neighbours, in particular, are represented by about 300 million people combined. Putting race, religion and other fault lines aside, we live in a world where larger countries are wont to lord over the small and powerless, throwing laws and legal norms out the window, particularly when there is no real price to pay for doing so. Combine this with Singapore’s peculiar circumstances – chief of which is that we are geographically very small – and the need for a capable and resolute SAF becomes abundantly clear, regardless of who our neighbours are.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, no organisation, let alone one that is in the business of war and defending Singapore’s sovereignty, can realistically promise zero fatalities or training incidents even as the public must insist on the strictest training safety parameters for the SAF, and MINDEF strives for the same. Second, operational readiness. Like other organisations with a requirement to be operationally ready at a moment’s notice, military personnel must be able to complete their assigned tasks safely and effectively. But, more so than any other type of organisation, militaries like the SAF must also stress discipline and hierarchy. This enables the organisation and its members to become a lethal fighting force that can call upon a whole suite of weapons to kill the enemy and those that seek to do Singapore harm. To reach such a level of proficiency, training has to be tough and realistic. But tough and realistic training must strike a balance between discipline, hierarchy, risk management and safety, so as to prepare the SAF to be operationally ready for different and difficult circumstances. As much as I support the safety review currently being undertaken by the SAF, it must not lead to a public perception that the SAF has gone soft. While requirements, expectations and the training methodology must adjust to each generation of NSmen and the equipment they operate, the SAF must be mindful not to swing to an extreme where realistic training is compromised. In this regard, the public response to the death of CFC(NS) Aloysius Pang has been far from one-way, dominated by doubts cast over MINDEF and the necessity of NS.”
“Therefore, training safety must always be of the utmost importance for MINDEF. However, MINDEF's recent message to make, and I quote, "zero training deaths the norm" is not only unrealistic but also wishful, considering the inherent risks in training a military force that must be ready to defend the country at a moment's notice or whenever called upon to do so. As a result of the expectations created, every time a training fatality occurs, the public pressure on MINDEF and SAF commanders down the leadership chain takes on a very corrosive edge. This damages not just the SAF, but the institution of NS, too. In the aftermath of CFC(NS) Aloysius Pang's passing, MINDEF's narrative has shifted somewhat to, I quote, "a zero-accident mindset". NSmen and those who are familiar with the SAF understand what MINDEF wants to achieve when it speaks of striving for zero fatalities – that MINDEF takes safety seriously. But the word that the public focuses on is "zero", and the end state of zero-accidents or fatalities is a goal that cannot be achieved even in industries with notoriously strict safety standards and compliance requirements like aviation. For example, in October 2015, maintenance engineers did not follow established procedures to insert landing gear pins before troubleshooting a landing gear fault causing a Singapore Airlines A330's nose-wheel to collapse at the boarding gate, resulting in multi-million dollars' worth of damage. It was not a minor miracle no fatalities ensued as passengers waited to board the aircraft and a technician stood just metres in front the plane.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, it has been a difficult few weeks for the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). The death of CFC(NS) Aloysius Pang and other servicemen before him have provoked one of the most wide-ranging public debates about National Service (NS) in recent memory. As suggested in the title to this Adjournment Motion, I will speak on three distinct but interlinked themes – training safety, operational readiness and the will to fight, before concluding on some areas that the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) should consider to improve the safety architecture in SAF. First, training safety. Members would know that the women and men in uniform in the SAF perform tasks that are inherently risky. They operate heavy machinery and weapons in difficult conditions. The work demands that they can function at the physical, psychological and emotional limits of human endurance during both training and operations. The ability to perform under pressure during training can help bolster effectiveness during operations. Hence, the time-honoured military saying for soldiers in training, "The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war". However, the risky nature of such work demands, particularly for a predominantly conscript army, that extra care and attention be devoted to safety and the management of risks during training. Human lives are at stake when unnecessarily risky and unauthorised training is carried out in the SAF. Injury and death of personnel during training decrease the operational effectiveness of our military. To the extent that women and men in uniform and the public do not believe that the SAF manages such risk to acceptable levels, there will be negative consequences for morale, performance and the institution of NS.”
“Mr Speaker, just two questions for the Minister. My first pertains to the non-operational responsibilities on NSmen and NSFs, such as National Day Parades (NDPs) and Army Half Marathon. Some would be of the view that some aspects of organising such events could be undertaken by the private sector. To that extent, is MINDEF, as part of this safety review, looking into the time NSFs and NSmen have, to focus on training, maintenance and other operational responsibilities? So, that is the first question. The second one pertains to the handout that the Minister gave. This was the External Review Panel's report on the COI's preliminary findings on the death of CFC Liu Kai. Paragraph 6(b) states that the SAF's medical response is based on the concept of rapid evacuation to the next echelon of care. However, such a response may not be adequate when a casualty cannot be evacuated promptly, as in CFC Liu Kai's case. Can the Minister share why CFC Liu Kai was not evacuated promptly even though it does state earlier in the report that even if he could have been evacuated, he probably still would have demised from his injuries.”
“Mr Speaker, what is needed is for knowledge of these new laws to be widely disseminated within the community so that they help send a strong deterrent message. I would like to ask the Minister what measures would be taken to make these new laws well-known, particularly amongst foreigners, who may not be familiar with the minutiae of our various laws on drugs, and amongst high-risk individuals like former drug addicts. Finally, I would suggest that more preventive education across platforms on these amendments as introduced in clause 3 would be particularly important because of the rising permissiveness and attitudes across the region on drug consumption and the general relaxation of the laws against drugs in the region. Mr Speaker, I support the amendments to the Act.”
“What sort of training and support will these individuals undergo so that they do not feel disheartened about addicts who do not respond well to treatment, such that they can continue plugging away at the hugely important task of rehabilitation? This is likely to become more significantly as a large part of rehabilitation involves reintegrating the addicts into the community and in gainful employment, something that may be even more challenging in this age of economic destruction. It is vital that maximum support is extended to the volunteers, workers and supporters throughout the drug rehabilitation chain, from DRC staff to uniformed officers, CNB officers and to families and parents that need help and assistance to, in turn, help their loved ones and individuals under their care to kick the habit for good. Clause 3 of the Bill introduces a number of new laws that are far-reaching and reflective of the state's uncompromising and continued hard stance against drugs. Amongst other things, it criminalises the act of contamination which facilitates or promotes drug use, including actively introducing a drug trafficker to another person, knowing that the trafficker is likely to supply him with drugs. A person should also be guilty of a contamination offence if he teaches, instructs or provides information to another person on how to cultivate, manufacture, consume, traffic, import or export controlled drugs, such as cannabis, for example, knowing or having reason to believe that the other person intends to carry out these activities. It makes it an offence for an adult to leave drugs or drug utensils within easy access of a child, knowing that the child is likely to be in proximate range of a drug or drug utensils.”
“I originally intended to ask how the percentages have changed over the years and what the figures were today and, with specific reference to the amendments, how many drug addicts imprisoned under the LT1 and LT2 regimes currently face concurrent criminal charges when they were originally sentenced to long-term detention. But the Minister earlier shared that the figure was about 50% now. But the Minister also shared that, given easy access to funds and a general rise in access to drugs in the region, in view of these realities, and the latest statistics provided by the Minister in his Second Reading speech, would the Minister be able to share the family background and income levels of those with criminal charges and those without under the current LT1 and LT2 regimes? Separately, to give the public a better sense of the rehabilitation task ahead, can the Minister share, out of the inmates committed to DRCs, how many are repeat offenders to date? My second clarification, while the amendments do not foresee any increase in public expenditure, how much more support will be given to counsellors and the halfway house employees and volunteers, to help keep recidivism numbers low? The reality, when we speak of rehabilitation and the new calibrated approach, is that someone somewhere will be on the delivery end of the outcome sought – far fewer repeat drug addicts, compared to the current regime. So, the proposed changes are likely to put an acute focus on the people behind rehabilitation as they endeavour to get drug addicts out of a dangerous situation for good.”
“But the Government will do what it can to help them, that is, both the recovering addicts as well as the halfway houses. In terms of financial support, I think if we can justify a case to ask for more money, we will look at it. But the Government does not just spend money, throwing good money after bad money to people who do not want to change." One of the main amendments proposed today is to finetune the LT1 and LT2 regimes and circumstances where the drug addict does not have concurrent criminal charges. In parallel, the amendments raised the time an addict can spend in the DRC from three to four years, along with the longest supervisory window from two to five years to submit himself or herself at random to the authorities for urine tests or to provide a hair sample. Speaker, I am supportive of the aforesaid changes and commend the significantly more enlightened attitude taken by policymakers to shift the focus on helping selected repeat drug offenders in a more purposeful and surgical manner through the calibration of the MDA rehabilitation regime. This is no mean feat, given the risks that some members of the public may erroneously construe this shift as a relaxation of attitude towards hardcore drug addiction. However, I see it as an example of rational and sensible policymaking. In fact, this policy shift is significant, considering the LT regime was introduced a mere 20 years ago and to cover even more offenders when the Act was amended in 2006. Notwithstanding my support on these points, I have some clarifications I want to seek from the Minister. The first clarification is a request for information. In 1998, the then Minister, in introducing the LT regime, shared that more than 73% of hardcore drug addicts have some form of a criminal record.”
“Mr Speaker, the proposed amendments to the MDA represents an important philosophical shift to some aspects of the fight against drugs while reinforcing the uncompromising stance against drugs in Singapore. Almost 20 years ago, the Ministry took a very specific approach towards hardcore addicts through the MDA, initiating long-term mandatory imprisonment and caning for hardcore drug addicts, a hardcore addict being warned, defined as having been caught more than twice for drug consumption. Back then, the priority was not on framing drug addiction as a social issue afflicting drug addicts but a behaviour that has been criminalised. Addicts who consume drugs for the third time face up to seven years' imprisonment and six strokes of the cane, while addicts caught four times or more face up to 13 years' imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane. In introducing the long-term regime, the then Minister moving the amendments noted that the proportion of hardcore addicts amongst the total drug rehabilitation centre population has increased from 65% in 1994 to 71% in 1997. In his Second Reading speech, the Minister also referred to hardcore addicts as "bad people" who are likely to become drug pushers and traffickers, too. The position revealed the state's philosophy that was focused on an uncompromising stance towards drug addicts, towards hardcore drug addicts, with rehabilitation openly seen as having its limits. In the words of the then Minister, I quote, "Sometimes, despite all the good heartedness, the love and the hard work put in by volunteers in halfway houses, some of these volunteers do feel disheartened that these addicts just do not have the discipline to take the treatment.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for some of the statistics he gave. Mr Seow's case, of course, has started a whole enquiry into MediShield Life and how it works amongst many members of the public. I had a resident who has come to me, was hospitalised for two days for a minor stroke, out-of-pocket, including MediSave, from his own monies, it is about 25% of the bill. He sees a line item "MediShield Life" contributing zero dollars, that is, because it is within the deductible limit. So, my question really is about the review that MOH is undertaking – whether it is in line with the spirit of the MediShield Life Review Committee report, to have greater transparency on reserve requirements. Because that is where a large chunk of the public discussion is going to now – whether the amount of premiums collected is too high or is it just right? It is unclear to members of the public as to whether MediShield Life is over collecting premiums. Some clarity on that would be helpful, in line with the spirit of the MediShield Life Review Committee report.”
“Mr Speaker, I just have one supplementary question for the Minister. From the bilateral talks and discussions, both official and non-official, does the Minister sense that the Malaysian government is sincere in resolving the various bilateral issues between the two countries on a win-win basis?”
“I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. My Parliamentary Question was actually prompted by a resident who saw me in late August. He had been referred by a polyclinic for a specialist appointment for a colonoscopy procedure. These were the resident's words and I narrated this to the Singapore General Hospital (SGH). One of the hospital's staff told him that only one day of the week is set aside for subsidised patients for colonoscopy procedures and that is the reason why his appointment was scheduled six months later. So, I shared this information with SGH. SGH came back a couple of weeks later. They contacted the resident and they pushed forward the appointment by three months, and so, he only had to wait three months. So, that is reason why I actually asked the question whether, firstly, there is any truth to this assumption or allegation that there are specific days set aside for non-subsidised patients and other days for subsidised patients, be it for inpatient procedures or other procedures not limited to colonoscopies. The second question I have is pertaining to a reply that the Senior Minister of State gave that between the years 2013 and 2017, 1.5% of foreigners were registered for inpatient or day surgeries in our public hospitals. But what is the number, the absolute number of that, as opposed to a percentage? I believe earlier in October, there was an MOH reply to The Sunday Times clarifying that this number is actually lower than what it was in 2008. At that time, it was 2.4% if I remember correctly. Just to get a sense of the absolute numbers, I would appreciate if the Senior Minister of State could share the total number of foreign patients, vis-a-vis both percentages.”
“Can I clarify with the Minister if there are any statistics available on the number of minorities who own such HDB flats? How much feedback has gone to HDB about their inability to sell their unit because of the EIP policy? Is there any data the Minister has on hand?”
“I would like to clarify on HIP II. Some of the feedback that I regularly get about HIP I is spalling concrete, particularly. Spalling concrete continues to be an issue even though it is an essential item of improvement under HIP I. Some of the suggestions from my residents have been to consider, for future upgrading programmes, hydrostatic solutions for kitchens, so as to slow down the seepage of moisture between floors; and also shower trays for toilets to prevent the same problem. These items and solutions are cheaper when procured in bulk. This is some of the feedback that I get, and I hope the Ministry can consider these solutions for future upgrading projects.”
“But I would like to read Recommendation 9 which would be a helpful way for the Government to move forward. Recommendation 9 of the Select Committee's Report states that "Public institutions should wherever possible provide information to the public in response to online falsehoods in a timely manner. They should also seek to pre-empt vulnerabilities and put out information in advance where appropriate to inoculate the public. They should ensure that they communicate with the public in clear and comprehensible terms." I do understand that "Factually", the Government website, put out a response to certain misinformation that was generated by Mr Leon Perera's question. His question came out on 10 September; on 11 September, certain websites got carried away with certain information or the way they interpreted that reply. And on 16 September "Factually" presents the components as the Deputy Prime Minister did. But I would suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister that if we put out the dollar value, the prospect of more misinformation can be reduced.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is yes. We agree. The Ministerial salaries 2012 White Paper versus the Workers' Party's formula table that the Deputy Prime Minister had shared with the House is accurate. There is one point which I have to make, which is an important distinction even though the result is similar, is the basis upon which the monthly component is calculated. And that was a question of principle. The principle that the Workers' Party took upon itself was to consider what would be a fair multiple, what sort of message do you send to the public with regard to appropriate salary that ultimately is derived. We chose MX9 as the point, because we felt that an entry-level Civil Servant would aspire to that position, and he would not have to be a scholar or anything of that sort. That is our political perspective at that time. The Government's perspective is to take the 1,000 top earners and then you take a percentage of their total salary and then give a discount of 40% or something of that nature. So, that is the key difference. But the total amount, as it is accurately in the table, is correct. The second point I would like to suggest – and this is not belabouring the issue, Mr Speaker – is the question again by Mr Alex Yam about the amount. I believe, in the context of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods that came out with a list of recommendations, it is actually more propitious for us to present all the information in an easy-to-understand manner for the public. And that would reduce the prospect of misinformation online. I understand there is an issue with regard to Performance Bonus. A range would be sufficient. It does not need to specify what each Minister gets.”
“I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his reply to Mr Alex Yam's question. The Deputy Prime Minister stated that the three components of Mr Alex Yam's question had been answered. The second part actually requests the Prime Minister to state the amounts in months of salary paid for the year from 2013 to 2017. What we have in the first handout is a range in the number of months. Do we have details on the absolute dollar amount that was requested in the Parliamentary Question (PQ) by Mr Alex Yam? The second question I have is with regard to whether the Deputy Prime Minister agrees that in response to Mr Leon Perera's PQ filed on 10 September, whether the Government could have pre-empted some of the misinformation that occurred online had a fuller and more expansive reply been given to Mr Leon Perera in September.”
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for sharing details of the standard operating procedure. Just to clarify a point about the 25-year guideline – the public record is reviewed, it is then sent to the agency concerned and the agency will comment on national security matters, personal issues and so on. Are those matters then redacted and the documents still released to the National Archives or is the document, because of certain national security concerns, not released at all?”
“Can I clarify with the Minister if there are any plans to review the attractiveness of the Lease Buyback Scheme in view of the relatively low take-up to date?”
“I thank the Minister for the clarification on the deferment policy. I asked a question on deferment during the Committee of Supply in 2012 and I asked my question in relation to the Olympics because there is this constant reference to a high watermark sporting event before deferment is considered by MINDEF, or at least that is the popular perception. In the 2012 reply given by the Minister, it was stated that 13 athletes were deferred for a period of two to six months to participate in the 2011 SEA Games and the 2010 Asian Games. Can I confirm that, with the Minister's statement, there is no change in the policy for NS deferment? The second question actually is picking up from what Dr Lim Wee Kiak said about a two-year contract. For example, if a Singaporean commits to return to performing his NS after his cohort has been called up, let us, say, at the age of 18, and that individual says, "At the age of 20, no matter how this training contract goes, I will come back to serve", would MINDEF allow deferment in that particular case?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, just a quick question for Senior Minister of State Amy Khor. Picking up from what she mentioned about loved ones topping up their spouses' MediSave, there is a point I raised in my speech about the prospect of the Government providing a tax relief like it does for Special Account, whether it could consider something similar for MediSave accounts, particularly in the gig economy, with contract work. I think that was a point Ms Jessica Tan raised as well.”
“Such a move would enhance the ability of CPF members’ MediSave accounts to support future increases in CareShield Life and other compulsory premiums, generate greater interest for members and give them some peace of mind for their loved ones at the same time. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the comments, views and suggestions to improve the management of CareShield Life by my colleagues, the Workers’ Party supports the rationale behind CareShield Life and the setting up of ElderFund.”
“Thirdly, the administration of CareShield Life presents an opportunity to pilot a fresh approach towards public education of Government policies. Mr Speaker, we live in an era where inaccurate news can gain currency very quickly through social media and, as such, cloud people’s perceptions of policies. Even as some intentionally perpetuate misinformation about policy, there are yet many others who have genuine enquiries on various aspects of CareShield Life that they may be unsure about. A Freedom of Information regime with respect to CareShield Life can promote the Committee’s recommendation to better educate the public about the scheme. More importantly, the advantage of such an approach towards education is that the public discourse is less likely to be antagonistic but more data- and fact-driven. To conclude, Mr Speaker, my Workers’ Party colleagues and, I note, the Chairman of the Healthcare GPC have spoken about reviewing whether CareShield Life can be made gender neutral. I strongly support this call in the name of inclusivity and in parallel with the scheme’s philosophy of each cohort looking after itself. It will mean men will pay more and women less. Let it be so. The Motion gives Parliament scope to rethink the concept of inclusivity for long-term care and define it to mean that men and women will not be treated differently. In this vein, I would also call on the Government to consider extending tax relief to CPF members who top up the CPF MediSave accounts of their loved ones, regardless of gender, until the Basic Healthcare Sum is met, similar to the tax relief cap on top-ups to the Special Account currently.”
“I would argue that it is in the Government’s interest to consider if it could go further before the CareShield Life Bill is introduced next year. In fact, I would call for the Government to consider implementing a Freedom of Information framework in the administration of CareShield Life and appoint an information officer to the Independent Council who would respond to public requests for information about any aspect of CareShield Life for a reasonable administrative fee. There are good reasons for the Government to consider taking such an approach. First, such a commitment to openness would go hand-in-hand with CareShield Life’s universal and inclusive approach based on risk-pooling which makes every Singaporean in each cohort, his brother and sister’s keeper. As all Singaporeans contribute to the risk pool, it follows that the Government should make it easier for Singaporeans to take ownership of the schemes they are enrolled into and make enquiries on any aspect of the scheme’s administration. Secondly, as the Committees’ report puts the onus on the Independent Council to regularly review and recommend premium and payout adjustments to the Government, this aspect of the Council’s work may come under scrutiny whenever premiums are raised. In all likelihood, more questions, not fewer ones, on future and previous long-term care projections will be raised, complete with misgivings, apprehensions and inaccuracies in the coffee shops and on social media. A proactive approach to public education would minimise this prospect and an open information regime would go a long way to addressing criticisms pertaining to transparency and accountability.”
“In this regard, there are some questions I seek the Minister to shed light on. When ElderShield was launched in 2002, MOH made a specific provision in its ElderShield contract with the private insurers to return up to 50% of any accumulated surplus to existing policyholders, if the actual claims experience should turn out to be different from what was projected in 2002. In the first five years of the scheme, ElderShield claims have been lower than those projected in 2002. From a Parliamentary Question filed by my colleague Assoc Prof Daniel Goh in 2017, the Ministry confirmed that two ElderShield rebates have been given to CPF members enrolled in the scheme – one in 2007 and another in 2012 – to the tune of $130 million in total. On what basis, did the Ministry set the rebate quantum at 50% when ElderShield was first introduced, and is there a rebate quantum assigned for CareShield Life and, if so, what is it, or is this a matter for the Independent Council to pursue? Secondly unlike ElderShield, a significant aspect of CareShield Life envisages increased cash payouts over time, supported by regular adjustments over time to keep inflation in check. How often will actuarial principles be reviewed, a point that becomes very significant, particularly for those who may have passed away but contributed significantly by way of premiums in the past? Mr Speaker, to arrest unnecessary speculation and misinformation about CareShield Life, the Government must commit to publish and be absolutely transparent about the actuarial principles and factors that drive premium hikes, including the investment returns on CareShield Life going forward. To this end, the Committee's report calls for the setting up of an Independent Council and calls on its recommendations to be made public.”
“In the case of CareShield Life, the effect of technological disruptions on permanent jobs, the gig economy and more contract jobs in the workplace creates insecurities which impact sustained participation in compulsory schemes, particularly when future premiums are going to increase. One major concern I have, which the Minister briefly expanded upon, is the statistics that the ElderShield Review Committee and many mainstream media outlets zeroed-in on of one in two Singaporeans becoming severely disabled in their lifetime. From footnote 10 in the Committee’s report, this is an MOH estimate based on local data, supplemented by international data. This factoid, which appears prominently in the Executive Summary of the Committee’s Report, has raised eyebrows leading some to enquire whether it is unrealistically dire, legitimising higher and earlier premium payments. I would like the Minister to explain this projection, specifically, how the Ministry came to this conclusion, because many Singaporeans cannot visualise how it coheres with the reality they see around them today. More details on this statistic would be welcome. This, in turn, has led some to focus narrowly on the by now familiar statistic that ElderShield collected about $2.6 billion in premiums while paying out only slightly in excess of $100 million from 2002 to 2016. In fairness to ElderShield, this point cannot be intuitively understood until one appreciates that ElderShield continues to provide lifetime coverage after one stops paying premiums and the scheme requires significant pre-funding to anticipate sufficient payouts for policyholders. To this end, it would be important to reveal the actuarial principles and considerations behind both ElderShield and CareShield Life.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the contribution and work of the ElderShield Review Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr Chaly Mah in framing a new long-term care plan for Singaporeans. The current ElderShield Scheme has seen around 40% eligible of Singaporeans opting out because of the perception of low payouts, amongst other reasons. Making CareShield compulsory and universal and separately collecting premiums earlier from the age of 30, represents a fundamental reshaping of Singapore's long-term care insurance scheme. At the outset, it is important that the Government not underestimate the extent of misinformation surrounding the scheme. The recent WhatsApp messages which the Government sought to debunk through the mainstream media about it allegedly profiting from CareShield Life can be put down to some perceived pain points and public education gaps. Many of these find their roots in the lack of knowledge about the principles behind long-term care schemes, such as ElderShield, but also in the use of statistics and data that are based on projections for which little detail and clarification have been provided thus far. In particular, the question of ever-escalating premiums after transitional subsidies and CareShield Life's likely loss ratio, given the ElderShield experience, has created considerable unease in the public mind. While the use of MediSave to pay CareShield premiums was recommended by the Committee, this has also raised the prospect of a further depletion of CPF members' MediSave account towards another compulsory scheme after the recently announced MediShield Life, a scheme whose transitional subsidies are only going to be phased out in 2019.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like to seek some clarification from the Minister. The PUB Annual Report 2017 does not refer to notes on Capital Reserve, like its Annual Report in 2016. Let me just read out that short note that appears in the 2016 Report, but not the 2017 Report. On capital reserve, just a short paragraph, "Section 40 of the Public Utilities Act 2002 requires the Board to finance a reasonable proportion of its capital expenditure from internal sources. The capital reserve has been utilised to account for the yearly transfer of the retained earnings to finance the Board’s property, plant and equipment", just like the Minister mentioned. And then it goes on to say, "The capital reserve comprises the accumulated transfers from retained earnings and amounts paid by Government bodies and private developers towards the capital outlay for the provision of utility, facilities completed before 1998." Can the Minister please share some information on the last aspect of this note, how much is this amount that has been transferred prior to 1998; what are we talking about here?”
“Mr Speaker, I think it will be appropriate for the Party to put up any corrections, if, indeed, these are warranted. And this is something we will look at.”
“Mr Speaker, with regard to the question on Government financing, can I confirm, in the event the HSR is terminated, does the Ministry of Finance envisage lowering the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) contributions to the Government’s Budget, as a result of not having to pay for HSR, at least the Singapore portion of the HSR?”
“I thank the Minister for the reply. I refer to the PTC's news release on 22 March 2018 on the Fare Formula Review. There is a paragraph which says that "the Government will continue to provide significant subsidies for public transport services estimated to be around $9 billion over the next five years. Can the Minister provide some details on the nature of these subsidies? The amount is a significant one. Are there any details the Minister can share on which classes of commuters will benefit from these subsidies?”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Just following up on the speech of Minister Lawrence Wong, pertaining to Government surpluses. I noted in my speech that, at this current point, the Government has slightly in excess of $15 billion in accumulated surpluses. The Minister was speaking of a debate we had when the NIRC formula was amended to include Temasek. In that debate, if I remember correctly, the reasons given for the change were higher expenditure on healthcare, higher expenditure on ageing and infrastructure development. And just to get a sense of the Government's plans in future, given the accumulated surpluses at hand, largely, I would believe as a result of Temasek's inclusion, do we have some understanding of what new projects or even endowments will be created by the Government for the years to come?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a few questions for the Minister for Defence pertaining to his earlier Ministerial Statement. My first question pertains to the COI concerning 3SG Gavin Chan and the finding that his night vision device was not working. Does the COI report indicate whether the non-serviceability of the night vision device could have been a critical factor in the incident, in that, 3SG Chan, had his device been working properly, could have taken some remedial action before the obstacle was discovered along the path where the vehicle was moving? The second question is related to that, whether, in future, MINDEF would consider making public COI reports as a form of closure for the public, with, of course, the relevant details redacted? These could include sensitive information on behalf of the family and other operational reasons to redact certain information.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion. 3.35 pm”
“This must naturally, therefore, begin with a 21st century military that should go beyond the call of duty in the pursuit of individual skills proficiency. In conclusion, Sir, I would like to emphasise the need to ensure that equality of opportunity is something that every Singapore Citizen continues to have confidence in. Although income inequality is a legitimate concern, I would argue that we should focus on it not to the exclusion of the much more fundamental need to ensure equality of opportunity. Singapore has strong and reliable institutions which provide opportunities for all segments of society to access basic social and municipal services, not to mention opportunities for social mobility. Equality of opportunity benefits everyone in the long term because it strengthens the social fabric and provides a sustainable basis for each and every generation to pursue prosperity and individual fulfillment. Ultimately, better equality of opportunity should reduce income inequality in the long run but it cannot be something that can be done in a rush. Singapore has grown from strength to strength over more than 50 years because of focus on equality of opportunity when it comes to jobs, in particular. It is important to refresh and rejuvenate these efforts in the current industry transformation push and to continue to emphasise equality of opportunity in acquiring skills at every stage of our citizens' lives, regardless of whether it is in the schools, in National Service, in the workforce, in re-employment or even as a non-working member of society. It is almost no doubt that the days of mass job creation are over. We need to create a much more differentiated workforce, one that can confront, even if not completely overcome, challenges of inadequate skills coverage.”
“The SkillsFuture movement is providing a much needed focus on the skills issues. As the information in the skills framework is augmented, understanding that individual workers have not just the challenges that confront them in skills acquisition, the opportunities that are open to all of us in the skills landscape should begin to crystallise. Even though the Ministry of Education (MOE) is the one coordinating all these efforts through SkillsFuture Singapore, all Government Ministries and agencies have a role to play in this and I would urge each and everyone to accept the role on the skills endeavour entrusted upon them as leaders in all areas of skills development. The roles of Ministries, such as MOM, MTI, the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI), the Ministry of Finance and agencies, such as the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the National Research Foundation, are clear but they must go beyond these natural lead agencies to include all others who have influence over shaping work attitudes and, therefore, work ethics. Here, I would like to talk about a role that may not be as clear but, certainly, no less direct, and, that is, the one that is played by the Ministry of Defence(MINDEF) and the Singapore Armed Forces in leading the impressionable young minds in 21st century skills mastery and leadership. Skills training, in many ways, is part of what an organisation like MINDEF invested with heavy responsibilities for shaping young lives must dedicate itself to in order to stay relevant. As a small country, painfully aware of our natural limitations, there should, therefore, be no self-imposed limits to asserting the priority of progressive thinking but a need to pursue continuing skills improvements.”
“Sir, all advanced economies face the same challenges that we face in trying to keep up with the rapidly changing manpower needs of their economies. And many have already begun to recognise that the solution lies in preparing and revisiting the skills adequacy of their workforce, so that it keeps up with the evolving demands of the global economic competition. In order to improve their preparedness, advanced economies regularly make projections about their skills needs, appropriately harnessing the technology that is available today. A picture of where the skills deficits are can be obtained which, no matter how imperfect, gives the modern advanced workforce a good sense of what the skills landscape would look like in the near future. For Singapore, especially where the twin challenges of manpower shortages and skills deficits are never far from our minds, mapping the landscape of available skills will provide policymakers with an informed start to addressing the skills challenges of tomorrow. Hence, I agree strongly with the characterisation Minister Heng Swee Keat offered last week of the situation we are in, where he pointed out, in his media interview, that the solution to the problem we face should also be contained in the very technology which is causing the destructive challenges. In short, Sir, I believe that the crux of the on-going industry transformation efforts is workforce skills. The imperative for the workforce is to keep as much ahead of the curve as possible against the competition, leaving them in no doubt that even if tomorrow's jobs appear to be created, the Singapore workforce of today is prepared to be the first off the mark to acquire the necessary skills to fill them. Despite the scale of the challenge, there is room for cautious optimism.”
“As the population's incomes rose, the workforce as a whole embraced higher skilled jobs, including moving much more quickly into knowledge work than other economies which had started out in a similar way. What we face now in Singapore are, in some ways, the problems of having been too successful too quickly. With a workforce in which the proportion of degree holders is increasing rapidly, we now have an increasing proportion of professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) and, as a result, of knowledge workers as well. Knowledge workers are subject to the same laws of demand and supply that all other resources must adhere to, and an excess of knowledge workers of the same type in any one area that is unsupported by demand will see the labour market prospects of that group dwindle. As an advanced economy, Singapore faces the same insatiable thirst for top manpower in a broad array of fields as other advanced economies. But the limited size of our population is such that the availability of skills it can supply will always fall short of the breadth being demanded by companies competing at the cutting edge of global competition. In other words, I strongly believe what Singapore faces quite uniquely among advanced economies is not so much a problem with skills gaps, but more one of insufficient skills coverage. To deal with this, the core principles which had guided early planners to their success remain relevant today. And that is to prepare early for the inevitable, to make difficult decisions to match seemingly impossible and incompatible objectives and, most importantly, to do so with a clear understanding of how much is at stake.”
“At its core, the transition from the 3G to 4G leaders must be accompanied by a transformation of our society which creates the conditions to engender a confident people. The impetus and authority behind a new boldness in Singaporeans should harken back to the title of the President’s Address: a call for a strong people-Government partnership to build our future Singapore. A people who exercises independent judgement and who are empowered to support Singapore and to move forward together. Finally, Mr Speaker, I would like to put on record my thanks for Minister Chan Chun Sing’s words on the Workers’ Party and Mr Low Thia Khiang’s contributions over the years. The Workers’ Party will always bear in mind the national interest in our deliberations and endeavour in the interest of Singaporeans and Singapore. 3.26 pm Assoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion. One of the first things our workforce of the future would have to be prepared for is the increasing differentiation in job roles and, as a consequence, also of the skillsets that these roles will demand. Singapore's early success with employment growth had been founded on the same principle that other industrialised economies adopted, with mass creation of jobs to support large-scale manufacturing. As the President's Address indicated, the future of work will be very different. Unlike many other economies, however, Singapore had managed to sustain the early approach by recognising quite early on that a much more sophisticated labour market model would be required as global economic competition intensified. Hence, instead of differentiating industries, therefore, economic planners had the foresight to push for the workforce to graduate into higher value-added activities.”
“7 billion in hand today and, given the putatively stable formula for NIRC withdrawals in spite of market fluctuations, the picture for the immediate future does not appear to be one of a Government needing money to stay afloat and needing to tax the population as a result, raising the cost of living. We are told more money is needed for healthcare and other areas in the years to come. This is not unexpected, given our demographic transition with our elderly population expected to grow to 900,000 by 2030. But what are the Government’s current estimates and the underlying basis for its projections of higher expenditure coming on stream in future? This information needs to be shared so that the public is clear-eyed about the sufficiency of the budget at the Government’s disposal to help Singaporeans with the cost of living today. In conclusion, Sir, the President’s call not to eschew bold changes is not one that should preoccupy the 4G leadership alone. The leadership transition from the third generation (3G) to 4G leaders also presents a unique opportunity for each Singaporean to question what we can do to make Singapore a better home for all of us. The leadership team is no longer just the political leadership. Singapore needs a special breadth and depth of leadership if it is to succeed; leadership in every field of industry from trade and industry to sports, arts and culture. If Singapore is to thrive as the immediate geopolitical situation shifts – and separately, the challenge of an ageing society, inequality and an extremely low TFR confronts our small country – boldness should be part of our national character, too.”
“And can flexible work arrangements become a compulsory option for new parents from employers? What can we do to make the education system a reason for parents not to panic about having children? Is there scope to introduce more child-support tax credits for low- and medium income parents which can be scaled back progressively as household income increases? Unlike their predecessors, the 4G leadership is coming into power when expenditures will rise in concert with the changing demographics in Singapore. But that is only half the story. On the question of finances, the inclusion of Temasek into the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) framework from 2016 has also put more money and, by extension, more political capital in the hands of the current Government and 4G leaders than any generation of PAP leaders. This is without having to even call on the President to unlock the reserves. To put this in perspective, the overall Budget surplus for this term of Government for FY2016 and 2017 is currently at $15.7 billion and this is after transfers to endowments and trust funds like the GST Voucher Fund. The $15.7 billion could potentially cover two more Pioneer Generation Packages of about $8 billion each, covering almost an additional one million more elderly. This is only taking into account the accumulated surplus of out of two of the five years of this Government’s term. In comparison, the first and only drawdown of the reserves in 2009 requiring Presidential approval amounted to $4.9 billion for the Jobs Credit scheme, which extended a cash grant for every local worker on a qualifying employer’s payroll, with a smaller amount allocated to financial institutions for the Special Risk Sharing Initiative. With $15.”
“Price hikes are likely to be better understood and contextualised to the benefit of the policy discourse in Singapore. Mr Speaker, the President correctly pointed out that young Singaporeans want to feel a strong sense of nation. Raising our Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is an existential issue for our nation. We know from a recent Government survey that many married Singaporean couples actually do wish to have three or more children. While 39% felt this was an ideal outcome, only 18% were able to actualise it. Similarly, while 53% of couples ideally wanted two children, only 37% were able to actualise it; 61% of respondents raised financial costs as their first out of three reasons for not having more children, followed closely by the stress of raising children in Singapore at 56%, and the difficulty of managing work and family demands at 33%. If, indeed, the cost of living is a major impediment to having more children, what can we do to address this issue? How will we create a strong sense of nationhood when our Singapore Core and the values internalised over 50 years of nation building are progressively hollowing themselves out with the population not replacing itself? Sir, immigration cannot be the long-term solution to our TFR woes. Immigrants will grow old, too, and we cannot be encouraging even more immigrants to set up home on our shores without a robust strategy to raise TFR. Not to do so would severely impact the quality of life in Singapore for our future generations in view of our limited size. The problem is a structural one; and structural changes are necessary and bold thinking is required to break with the orthodoxy of the past. Is there scope to make HDB flats more affordable by pegging prices to income levels?”
“The message that can be inadvertently sent is that a person is not able to look after himself, hence, needing support and severely undermining the work ethic. Singaporeans should not dismiss this concern. But parallel expectations and considerations apply equally for the Government, too. At the Committee of Supply debate this year, the Transport Minister confirmed that Singaporeans can expect to see a rise in transport costs in the very near future, too, to reflect growing network capacity and ridership. But as many callers to a local radio station commented not too long ago, the costs of running and improving the transport system cannot just be seen through the eyes of fare revenue. Many correctly questioned whether there ought to be some scope for other segments of SMRT's business to subsidise train operations, too, such as advertising and revenue from other investments to lessen the effect of any fare increases on the general population. Mr Speaker, the question of the quantum of the surpluses and the prospect of alternate revenue streams and future surpluses of many Government-linked companies and Statutory Boards to better cushion price hikes on Singaporeans needs to be looked at very closely and debated before prices go up. For example, on the 30% water hike, how do future capital investments in water supply and transmission cohere with the large capital reserves of the national water agency which have increased consistently from around $3 billion in 2007 to more than $5 billion in 2016? Getting into the details of such matters would represent a unique partnership with the people. It would represent bold leadership, but such an approach would also come with an upshot.”
“This would be an untenable outcome for the continued success of a small country like Singapore that needs to pursue innovation and excellence and to conceive new ways of doing things to greater vigour than ever before. I will focus my speech on the cost of living, a topic which the Workers' Party believes deserves closer scrutiny by the Government for the remainder of the term and beyond. The remaining Workers' Party Members of Parliament will address other issues, as covered in the Addenda to the President's Address. In the last few years, cost of living issues have dominated the headlines and more price rises are on the way, with a prospective hike in the Goods and Services Tax in the near future raising anxieties further. More than a year ago, in the wake of the announcement of a hike in water tariffs, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean sought to assure the public that the price of coffee should not go up in the aftermath of the water hikes because the cost of water in a cup of coffee is "much, much less than one cent" and that the public should not be scared of untrue stories about the coffee prices. While this is true in a mathematical sense, just a few days ago, a Zaobao report confirmed that one of the largest coffee shop chains had increased the price of coffee, citing rising overheads. One response to pre-empt cost of living concerns by the Government at Budget 2018 has been to enhance the GST U-Save Voucher, with each eligible household standing to receive $5 more every three months between 2019 and 2021 to compensate for the recently announced carbon tax. The PAP Government's philosophy has always been to target assistance. For those who govern, the fear of overly generous welfare payouts for the able-bodied comes with a warning.”
“Mr Speaker, in addition to laying out the Government's plans for the rest of the term, the President's Address this year was noteworthy, particularly for the upcoming transfer of power from the third to the fourth generation of PAP leaders. Three remarks, in particular, shone through. Firstly, the new PAP leaders cannot take the people's trust for granted and assume that the right to lead will automatically pass from one generation to another. Secondly, the 4G leaders ought to resist the temptation not to go for bold changes. And, thirdly, the 4G leadership must fire up and mobilise the spirit and energy of young Singaporeans. One thread that binds these three directives is the ability and willingness to listen to the people. This trait can be understated, especially in light of the dominance of the PAP and its electoral success over more than five decades of uninterrupted rule. However, societal norms and expectations of political leadership have evolved. Alternative views will have to be addressed, accommodated and considered thoughtfully so as to allow us to move forward together as one Singapore. What the Government should not do is to close the door or resign itself to the politics of majoritarianism when a sensitive or difficult subject comes along, but, instead, invest a lot more energy to engage and explain, for our people have more than their fair share of good ideas. If the approach of the 4G leaders is to ignore, silence or ridicule alternative ideas, they will fail to galvanise and spur all Singaporeans to greater heights; or worse, they may even engender a divided society, rendering the message of inclusivity hollow and without substance.”