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 31 of 36.
“Yes, I will, Mdm Speaker. Just a final question for the Minister. Can I suggest that the Minister allow the process of volunteers following NEA officers to run its course before we consider giving volunteers enforcement powers? Because the fact of the matter is it seems that, as most Members have suggested, the educative approach is really the way forward, and the Minister himself agrees. So, perhaps, we can continue on that line and then re-assess whether powers need to be given to volunteers. The second and very quick clarification: was there a public consultation done to invite feedback from the public as to whether volunteers should be extended enforcement powers?”
“Just to follow up with the Minister. So, in the case of summoning, for example, potential law breakers, would there be an NEA officer accompanying the volunteer? And if so, should it not be appropriate that in the current circumstances to just allow the NEA officer to be the one issuing the summons and the volunteer just observing what is happening and assessing what the approach is?”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I thank the Minister for his clarifications. If I heard him correctly, the Minister was suggesting that the scheme is really an expansion of the existing volunteer scheme and, therefore, the volunteers that come on-board will essentially be pursuing the same approach which they have done for the past three years, which is educative and to compel people to essentially stop doing what they are doing and, in the vast majority of cases, they will not be summoning. If that is the case, is it necessary to have the Act allow volunteers to be extended enforcement powers?”
“To this end, the Minister should consider a global approach to deployment of NEA officers, auxiliary officers and volunteers with properly scoped powers. Fifth, NEA volunteers at Opposition Town Councils. Does NEA intend to require volunteers to work with Town Councils to jointly identify problematic areas? If volunteers are drawn from the People's Association's Grassroots Organisations (PA GROs), how are they envisaged to work with Opposition Town Councils? Would there be regular meetings chaired by NEA for the Town Council to share information on problem spots as it would have a better feel of the frequently littered areas and common areas which are potential dengue hotspots? This is relevant as there are currently no institutional forums like the monthly Citizens' Consultative Committee (CCC) meetings for the PA GROs and Town Council representatives to meet in an Opposition Town Council, a state of affairs that is compounded by the fact that PA GROs like the RCs are averse to proactively partnering Opposition Town Councils to deliver outcomes to the community at large. In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, while the Workers' Party supports the principle of engaging the community to keep our neighbourhoods clean and the Community Volunteers scheme, we cannot support Parliament extending broad and sweeping powers to volunteers without a clear scoping of these powers. Therefore, the Workers' Party recommends that this Bill be committed to a Select Committee for review. Otherwise, we will not be able to support the Bill in its current form. 3.36 pm”
“With volunteers' extended enforcement powers, neighbours can potentially sign up as innocuous and well-meaning volunteers but who will then have to exercise their enforcement powers to summon some friends and neighbours in some cases while issuing a warning in other cases and then, exercising compassion in yet another series of cases depending on each situation. The flexibility which enforcement officers are endowed with has a real risk of inadvertently promoting a toxic environment in our communities. It can be construed by non-volunteer neighbours as blatant favouritism or worse, as an attempt by some volunteers to create a power or patronage networks that cannot be effectively policed. If Parliament is not apprised of how these enforcement powers under this Bill are scoped, there is a real risk that this Bill will become a victim of unintended consequences; consequences that can irreparably harm a harmonious multi-racial society. Fourth, volunteer numbers and deployment. How many auxiliary officers and volunteers does the Ministry have in mind to assist NEA for the tasks at hand? Does NEA plan to deploy these volunteers and will they be evenly spread out across Singapore or concentrated in areas which attract a large number of volunteers? Can the Minister assure this House that there would be an even deployment of volunteers with the greatly scoped powers across the country to ensure that no areas are left out by a shortage of volunteers? In the alternative if there are not enough volunteers in one particular area, will there be a corresponding increase in the number of NEA or auxiliary officers deployed to areas where the volunteer pool is small? If this is not done, in all likelihood, there may be pockets of areas in Singapore that remain problematic hotspots.”
“Mdm Speaker, the Workers' Party is of the view that the extent of such extraordinary enforcement powers and the degree to which they are limited should be rightfully determined by Parliament and not the Chief Executive of the NEA. Otherwise, Parliament's role is relegated to that of a mere rubber stamp. I have five queries on the potential appointment of volunteers as auxiliary officers for the Minister. In 2012, the NEA launched a volunteer programme which I mentioned earlier, and trained a group of volunteers from various NGOs, namely, the Public Hygiene Council, Waterways Watch Society, Singapore Kindness Movement, Singapore Environmental Council and the Cat Welfare Society. I understand from the Minister's Second Reading speech that new organisations will now be included in this pool. Can I confirm what criteria must a new organisation fulfil to be considered? Second, will volunteers be paid? The Pioneer Generation Package allows for every Pioneer Generation ambassador to receive a $10 allowance when they visit each Pioneer. This can come up to be a significant sum for a volunteer and I understand that some volunteers have earned a few hundred dollars a month visiting Pioneers, a sum that goes well beyond defraying the cost of food and transport. Will our volunteers under these amendments be paid? How much will a volunteer receive for each assignment? Is the payout determined by the number of volunteer hours or the number of summons issued or some other determinant? Third, volunteers with enforcement powers: will it upset our multi-racial community? Apart from the uncomfortable nexus between volunteerism and paid work, has NEA considered the behavioural aspects of volunteer enforcers on the wider community?”
“Mdm Speaker, a central aspect of this Bill is the inclusion of volunteers to assist NEA in its efforts to make Singapore a clean and not "cleaned" city. The Workers' Party supports the principle that underpins this Bill, which is to rope community volunteers, preserve and upkeep the environment and the cleanliness of our home. This is the philosophy that appears to underpin the NEA's CV scheme introduced a mere three years ago. Under this scheme, volunteers replace the presence of NEA officers on the ground and promote a more educative approach with lawbreakers while, nonetheless, retaining the authority to take down an individual's details before forwarding them to NEA for further review and investigation. These volunteers act to supplement NEA officers who cannot be everywhere all the time. Clause 5 of the amendment allows for the appointment of auxiliary officers who may be volunteers with potentially wide-ranging powers to enforce the Act. However, this Bill extends the powers of volunteers to include powers of arrest including search and seizure as determined by the Chief Executive of NEA. This represents a manifest escalation of the concept of not just the current CV scheme, but crucially the very concept of volunteerism as well. In fact, certain extreme powers such as forced entry, search and seizure and arrest should not be given to volunteers under any circumstances at all but only to NEA officers and auxiliary officers who are subject to the organisational discipline and whose careers are tied to the adherence of these norms. The Bill also seeks Parliament's approval to extend extensive powers ordinarily held by state employees to volunteers and for the Chief Executive of the NEA to limit these powers accordingly.”
“I understand CPF sends two reminder letters to the policyholder in the event of HPS premium non-payment. In an effort to highlight the importance of this scheme, can I confirm if these notifications are by ordinary post or registered mail? In addition, early reminders to the policyholders of low CPF balances for HPS premiums may be a powerful signalling tool that can prod members to top up their OA or, at the very least, seek assistance early, if they have other financial problems. In conclusion, when I spoke on raising the awareness of HPS in the 2014 Committee of Supply debate, the Minister of State replied that HDB issues a booklet, on the purchase of a property, to educate home buyers of the scheme. With a rising senior citizen population and constant reminders in the press about how Singaporeans do not plan well for retirement, the Ministry should step up its efforts to constantly inform homeowners of the benefits of the scheme every few years through brochures and pamphlets as they service their mortgages and seriously look at including Singaporeans with pre-existing illnesses to improve the scheme further. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.”
“The Government has raised its concerns about such an expansion, specifically on premium affordability in the past, and this is not an irrelevant consideration. However, similar misgivings were overcome in the move from MediShield to MediShield Life. In August 2015, CPF paid out more than at least $400 in HPS rebates to each of the 470,000 Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs) on HPS. This came up to almost $1.9 billion and with yet many thousands of other homeowners receiving less than the $400 but receiving a rebate nonetheless. The last time such rebates were paid out was in 2006. In between, in 2011, HPS premiums were lowered by an average of 12% for some 80% of HPS members. The remaining 20% were already paying low Page: 91 premiums. With these numbers in mind, it would appear that there is some scope to relook at the prospect of covering members in poor health under HPS. I hope the Board can commit itself to look seriously to cover Singaporeans with pre-existing illnesses. Secondly, plugging gaps for lapsed policyholders. While HPS is compulsory for all members who use their CPF to pay for their HDB flats, subject to HDB's approval, members can choose to opt out should they take up a similar mortgage-reducing insurance. In 2015, it was made known that 43,610 flat owners had been given permission to do so by HDB. However, my understanding is that HDB does not monitor these members thereafter, allowing them to theoretically opt out of their mortgage-reducing insurance shortly thereafter. In such a case, these households effectively fall through the cracks. Can the Minister confirm if CPF will consider plugging this hole in future and require them to sign up to HPS in the event their mortgage-reducing insurance lapses? Thirdly, reminders.”
“Separately, the statistics pointed to an increase in the number of members who had lapsed in their HPS premium payments or who were no longer insurable for medical and other reasons. It was 1.7% and 2% respectively in April 2011 and, by October 2013, the percentages had increased to 2% and 3%. To this end, I welcome the current amendments to allow co-owners, who could be family members, to help pay for HPS premiums, not just spouses. This should mitigate or reduce the number of lapsed policyholders going forward. However, for greater clarity, can the Minister give the House a primer on the regulations CPF has in mind in reinstating HPS insurance cover for paid claims when it is not liable to do so? Improvements to the scheme. While I welcome all the HPS-related amendments, I have three suggestions to make that could help strengthen HPS. First, covering Singaporeans with pre-existing illnesses. In 2011, the CPF amendment modified the HPS scheme to allow for more portability, so that in the event the homeowner who purchased a new HDB flat was no longer in good health, he would remain insured under the scheme by way of earlier participation. This amendment acknowledges that a member in ill-health could yet be covered so as not to prejudice him or her. With the introduction of MediShield Life by the Government, a seminal change that differentiated it from the old MediShield scheme, was the inclusion of members with pre-existing conditions, albeit with a 30% increase in premiums payable. The philosophical basis of this move was in concert with making Singapore an inclusive society. Similarly, HPS coverage for Singaporeans with pre-existing illnesses will buttress this in.”
“The importance of mortgage insurance coverage struck close to home when I lost an uncle more than a decade ago. He passed away in a motorcycle accident and did not have any HPS coverage. A sizeable mortgage sum remained outstanding and it was left to my aunt and cousins to commit significant resources to continue making mortgage payments on top of their own commitments. At that time, I thought HPS non-coverage was a rare occurrence. But years later, it was heartbreaking to find out that some of my own residents, albeit a small number, found themselves in exactly the same position as my aunt and cousins when their sole breadwinner passes away Page: 90 unexpectedly. To that end, I wish to acknowledge the compassion shown by CPF and the Housing and Development Board (HDB) staff to try their best to assist affected families by retrospectively reinstating HPS coverage in certain cases so that the other family members do not face hardship. In my last term, one particular family benefited from CPF's helpfulness and were profuse in their appreciation to me for pursuing the matter, but the appreciation should rightfully go to the agencies concerned. [Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair] According to CPF, as of 2013, about 70% of all HDB flat owners were covered by HPS. In 2012, a total of 1,074 claims amounting to $89.8 million were made to HPS policyholders. At the 2014 Committee of Supply debate, I spoke on HPS, requesting the CPF to require HDB flat owners who are paying for their mortgage in cash to sign up for HPS as a matter of course. More generally, the cut requested the Government to step up education on the importance of HPS, especially for low- to middle-income households.”
“In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, the tremendous scope of Parliament and specifically Select Committees to make our politics more accountable and better accessible to all Singaporeans should not be underestimated. This proposal to establish a SkillsFuture Select Committee can be read in two ways. The more cynical view is that Select Committees could be used to secure information not in the public domain on Government processes and decision-making, and to embarrass the Government. But there is another long-term perspective to be considered. And that is the in-depth granularity offered by Select Committees on vital issues affecting Singaporeans which would contribute significantly to create a culture of mastery and excellence; and for Singaporeans to take a deep interest in policies and to understand the trade-offs surrounding policymaking. This theme of excellence and mastery, not just competence, was covered in the Finance Minister's Budget speech 2014 and that is exactly what SkillsFuture is about. Parliament is in a privileged position to re-configure the relationship between the public and the Government as we march towards SG100. A more public role for Parliament and more time spent in it by Members of Parliament, offers greater scope to better our political system so that it governs effectively in the interests of all. Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion. 3.25pm”
“In his speech, the President clearly emphasised the importance of SkillsFuture to the economy, how important it is for SkillsFuture to be a success and how it must to be a national movement. There are many dimensions to SkillsFuture: PMETs, career guidance, sectoral manpower plans, Earn and Learn credits, individual learning portfolios, amongst others, across the age spectrum. Then, there is the issue of productivity. As I noted in my Budget Debate speech last year, the National Productivity Council has now come under the purview of SkillsFuture. For many advanced economies including Singapore, improving productivity is a serious matter. Even in Singapore, we have not achieved the productivity aims set in the Economic Strategies Committee Report 2020 of 2%-3% each year, and our numbers continue to look weak. As productivity and the acquisition of new skills are closely linked, a SkillsFuture Select Committee of Parliament comprising Members of Parliament from all parties would be in a good position to pursue and consider improvements and innovations to the Government strategies. This would ensure that SkillsFuture would work well on the ground, and examine how it could do more and to account for the taxpayer dollar that is eventually expended on it. The presence of Select Committee Members from all parties would not just be symbolic. In fact, it will be in step not just with the wishes of many voters, but it would mirror the inclusive Singapore the President spoke about and the Singapore we all desire. More importantly, it would operationalise what the President meant when he said, "Individual aspirations may defer, but we have to work together to create a common future".”
“However, there is a number of issues that would clearly keep the Government and the Opposition occupied in the years to come. In view of the longer experience and size of the UK, they host an extensive A to Z of Select Committees. Our Parliament, on the other hand, can establish Select Committees for key issues of the day as determined by Parliament. What could be some of these issues? First, there is a prospect of a Singapore where the number of elderly Singaporeans is expected to double in the next decade. It will have an attendant impact not just on our healthcare system, but on families too with more children having to take time off to look after their parents to see that they age well and gracefully. An Active Ageing Select Committee would be helpful in this regard to understand what gaps need to be plugged, in addition to where the deficiencies continue to exist in the system, the reasons for their existence and how they can be overcome. Second, there is a difficult population policy issue for which the Government has announced a mid-course review to take place around 2020. The Population Select Committee could potentially start hearings on this issue early, allowing Singaporeans to understand the decisions taken thus far and outline what other policies need to dovetail closely with our population strategies. It could also flesh out the different perspectives of Singaporeans with regard to trade-offs between the dwindling Singaporean Core and the economic strategies required for Singapore not just to survive, but to thrive in the next lap. Mdm Speaker, this House can endeavour to establish just one Select Committee in the immediate term, as a pilot Select Committee, and that is a SkillsFuture Select Committee.”
“In September last year, as Members of this House were busy at the election hustings, the UK House of Commons' Select Committee on Business Innovation and Skills received evidence on the UK government's productivity plan. This plan sought to address the main causes of low productivity in the UK. The Select Committee sought to determine whether the government's policies were likely to achieve their desired results. Ordinary citizens were able to submit their evidence to the committee through the UK parliamentary website. There was also the prospect of giving oral evidence at hearings that are open to members of the public and companies. As an example, some of the companies that gave evidence at the productivity inquiry included Rolls Royce and Virgin Atlantic, hence, providing a lot of scope for a deeper understanding of the problems of the day surrounding productivity from a wide canvas of citizenry. Even Hong Kong's Legislative Council carries out significant policy work behind the scenes. The Hong Kong Legislative Council hosts 18 different panels to deliberate on issues relating to specific policy areas and also to give views on major legislative or financial proposals before their formal introduction to the Council or the Finance Committee. These panels also examine important issues of wide public concern as referred by the Council or raised by the panels themselves. These include the development of elderly care services, retirement schemes, studies into free kindergarten education, animal welfare and cruelty to animals and even hawker policy. In practice, Mdm Speaker, our Parliament does not need to mirror the UK system, Hong Kong system, or any other system in its entirety, nor do we need to establish an excessive amount of Select Committees for the sake of it.”
“It is my view that the processes afforded to Select Committees are helpful because the testimony of witnesses, who could be private sector individuals, civil servants or implementing agents on the ground, would lead to greater information sharing and the acquisition of greater knowledge on specific policies by all Singaporeans, not just parliamentarians. In addition, an appreciation of the trade-offs in a more complex Singapore and a more complex international environment beyond SG51 would, in my own estimation, significantly mature our political discourse, level up knowledge and serve to unify our people. It would also encourage Singaporeans not just to look at an issue more deeply, but to understand why what may be a solution to some, has to be balanced with other demands, all of which must confront the question of financing, a question that a small country with no natural resources can ill avoid. The depth of knowledge of policies and their trade-offs enabled by Select Committee hearings and reports can also be a strong insurance against the danger of retail politics and political aspirants who irresponsibly make policies in the hopes of winning votes. Fast forward to the next 50 years, any conversation with Singaporeans cannot only be about seeking feedback and brainstorming sessions from the people before policy-crafting and implementation, which is important in its own way. But instead, it has to involve Singaporeans along every step of the way, including during execution, so that mid-course corrections, reviews and assessments can be made together.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Much of the attention surrounding the President's speech at the Opening of Parliament concerns the upcoming changes of the political system. The President's speech intermitted that an inclusive Singapore is a clear objective of the Government. I will speak on one aspect of the political system that I believe can play a very significant role to improve both politics and policies in Singapore and that is through Parliament and the institutions it offers. Mdm Speaker, Woodrow Wilson was quoted to have said, "It is not far from the truth to say that Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, whilst Congress in its committee rooms is Congress at work". To this end, Select Committees that meet regularly when Parliament is not session are fundamental pillars of many parliamentary democracies. The Erskine May on parliamentary procedures, the signature reference book used by parliaments in the Commonwealth, including Singapore, notes that Select Committees "have over recent years become the principal mechanism by which the House discharges its responsibility for the scrutiny of Government policy and actions". It goes on to say "the Select Committee members have been able to acquire significant levels of expertise in the specific areas for which that committee is responsible. This, together, with the resources available to them have reinforced the authority of their reports". Mdm Speaker, Select Committees are also an important means by which Members of Parliament build a public record, communicate with other Members of Parliament, civil servants, activists and the general public.”
“Just a follow-up to that question. I understand that they were the oldest lifts. Just to confirm with the Minister – so, for example, I have an estate, Jalan Damai, the estate was built at the same time but I do understand that when HDB purchased these lifts, they purchased different brands and so on and so forth. So, in the entire estate, the lifts are largely the same. They do not have those vision panels and so forth, but under SLRP, only certain lifts were selected. So, it seems a bit incongruous to me that some lifts are selected whereas some lifts are not when the HDB estate was built at the same time.”
“I would like to ask the Minister one supplementary question on the SLRP. Can I query what are the selection criteria for the SLRP? I understand when it was announced in September last year, it was for lifts built between 1987 and 1997, if I remember correctly, and it covered lifts mainly in Pasir Ris. And although they do cover some lifts in my ward, they do not cover all the lifts. So, can I just query what are the selection criteria?”
“I would like to ask the Minister, in view of the passing of the UN Security Council Resolution 2249 in the wake of the Paris attacks last year, which called on member states to take all necessary measures to prevent and suppress terrorist acts on territories under the control of ISIS, is MINDEF considering a different approach to increase Singapore's commitment and contributions to the anti-ISIS coalition?”
“Mdm Speaker, the Workers' Party wishes to record its decision to abstain from voting in favour of this Bill.”
“Mdm Speaker, the Workers' Party wishes to record its decision to abstain from voting in favour of this Bill, because of the Bill's non-committal to a Select Committee.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I would just like to confirm with the Minister of State the question I asked on clause 63 with regard to the penalty threshold of the $20,000 fine and a two-year imprisonment term. How was this derived in view of the number of regulations in the sub-sections that are covered in clause 63?”
“Secondly, it recommends that the Government commit to publishing details of human biomedical research that will be carried out under this Bill's auspices and recommends that reporting regulations to Parliament be placed upon research institutions and review boards that seek to carry out restricted research. As Members have not had the opportunity to scrutinise this Bill closely and in the event a Select Committee is not formed, the Workers' Party will abstain from voting in favour of this Bill.”
“Mdm Speaker, in view of the unique nature of this Bill and the significant powers that it confers, not just on the Minister, biomedical researchers and institutions and their review boards, it is helpful that clause 63 on regulations provides extensive powers to the Minister to make regulations requiring the submission of information, returns and reports as the Director of Medical Services may require. I would like the Ministry to consider publishing through the media or through Parliament at regular intervals the details of research projects rejected by the various IRB and the reasons for their rejection. This is in addition to the details of projects that are submitted to MOH for special approval, including details of serious adverse events, as identified in clause 2. This is chiefly to keep the public informed and aware of the workings of the self-regulation framework, particularly since this is a highly specialised area that requires significant intervention for the effects of this Bill to be understood by the layman. More specifically, in view of the importance of clause 63 as a regulatory tool for the Bill, I would like to ask the Minister how the penalty threshold of a $20,000 fine and a two-year imprisonment term was derived which, in my view, is set at a rather low threshold. Mdm Speaker, the Workers' Party is of the view that Parliament ought to form a Select Committee to holistically scrutinise the clauses that confer significant powers to various entities in addition to a detailed primer into the research this Bill legislates.”
“In effect, the existence of this clause reinforces the point that we are heading into uncharted waters even for the Minister who oversees this legislation. Parliament and the general public should be kept well-apprised of the research and controversies carried out under the auspices of this Bill should Parliament decide to pass this Bill. I make this suggestion because in researching for this Bill, I perused the newly released Ethics Guidelines for Biomedical Research released in late June this year by the Cabinet-appointed Bioethics Advisory Committee (BAC), and found it disconcerting that in the written response received during the public consultation period for these guidelines, the Managing Director of the Lilly-NUS Centre for Clinical Pharmacology noted, "I am quite concerned that there was not more of an effort to engage with stakeholders on this discussion. I was only made aware of the proposed changes when I chanced upon it in the press report, and a couple of investigators in other institutions I spoke to who conduct healthy volunteer research were not aware of these proposals at all. I would urge a nuanced approach to this matter from the BAC." Unsurprisingly, the public consultation on these BAC Ethics Guidelines revealed that different groups have different views on the conduct of biomedical research. In particular, the comments of the Buddhist Fellowship and the Catholic Medical Guild of Singapore revealed the difficulties in answering the fundamental question of when life begins and at what point consciousness starts – questions that are central to specific aspects of human Page: 109 biomedical research.”
“Equally of concern, clause 62 gives the Minister power to amend any of the Schedules to this Bill, effectively delegating all Parliamentary oversight on the Bill to the Minister after its passage in this House, as the five Schedules cover the essence of what this Bill seeks to legislate, namely: (a) human biological material excluded from the definition of human tissue; (b) research studies and methods excluded from the definition of human biomedical research; (c) prohibited human Page: 108 biomedical research; (d) restricted human biomedical research; and (e) waiver of requirements for appropriate consent by IRBs. Should the Minister choose to exercise his powers by virtue of clause 62, Parliament would have, in effect, completely delegated its powers to the Minister to fundamentally alter the Bill in operation should the scope of the Schedules, as listed in the Bill, be modified without having to go through Parliament. At the very least, should Parliament not place greater reporting requirements on the exercise of such extensive powers even as we seek to allow our researchers and RI as much latitude as possible to produce cutting-edge research work? Clause 62 would make Parliament little more than a mere rubber stamp with regard to human biomedical research in Singapore as this Bill gives complete latitude to the Minister to change the parameters and scope of biomedical research in Singapore without an amendment Bill and without Members having an opportunity to debate any gazetted changes in Parliament. Mdm Speaker, I recognise that clause 5 of the Bill allows the Minister to establish an advisory committee to advise the Minister on any matter arising out of the administration of this Act.”
“Under the human biomedical research framework, and under the conditions established in clause 3, it allows for: (a) research involving human embryos; (b) human-animal combination embryos created by the incorporation of human genetic material, or human cells or entities created as a result of the introduction of human cells into an animal foetus; and (c) the introduction into human neural cells of a post-natal animal and the introduction of human cells into the brain of a living post-natal animal. Under the Bill, the MOH's approval is required should the introduction of human genes into an animal embryo result in an entity that has human consciousness. These prospects can either cause the layman to look forward towards the future of human biomedical research with keen anticipation or with an acute sense of dread. The self-accountability framework underpinning this Bill allows for an RI or a bio-technology company or even a small and medium enterprise (SME) to potentially set up IRB to review and assess the work that is carried out by its researchers. Consent from subjects is an integral aspect of this Bill, before biomedical research is carried out, and rightfully so. However, the Bill gives extraordinarily wide powers to the chairman of an IRB, as exemplified by Part 2 of the Fifth Schedule, to waive the requirement for appropriate consent to be obtained for human biomedical research involving biological material or health information, should the research be reasonably considered to contribute to "the greater public good", a term that would only be determined affirmatively and not without controversy – in a Court of law? In fact, clause 57 affords the Minister even greater powers by permanently exempting any biomedical research activity from this Bill.”
“Mdm Speaker, the MOH's public consultation on the Human Biomedical Research Bill carried out from November to December 2014 states that the Bill is light-touch with minimal regulatory intervention. It envisages a system of self-accountability, underpinned by risk-based audits and checks. The Bill covers two major issues. Firstly, the biomedical research framework, while the second aspect regulates the framework governing the use and banking of human tissue. Mdm Speaker, I am concerned that with the light-touch regulatory approach, Parliament and Singaporeans will not be sufficiently informed about the nature of biomedical research carried out under the auspices of this Bill, leaving this House in little control over what Members agree to once this Bill passes muster. Page: 107 I am also of the view that this Bill provides a unique opportunity to nudge Members into exploring and expanding Parliament's role in our society through additional scrutiny to operationalise Parliament's educative role in society. At the outset, a vibrant biomedical research scene is in Singapore's interest. The prospects of a cure for cancer, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), Parkinson's disease, correcting congenital defects and a host of other medical breakthroughs are exciting. I certainly hope many Singaporeans, and young Singaporeans in particular, dedicate themselves to being at the forefront of these breakthroughs. What does this Bill allow, albeit under restricted conditions?”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. In the case of the second question, in the event that the cap is breached because of the nature of some of these injuries, will MOE consider at least assisting affected students and families with some compassionate assistance?”
“Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, did the insurance coverage acquired by MOE for the ill-fated Tanjong Katong Primary School (TKPS) Kota Kinabalu (KK) expedition include expenses related to medical treatment for injuries? Secondly, will MOE be setting up a fund to consider the prospect of reimbursing long-term injuries sustained by students as a result of the KK tragedy, if it has not already? Page: 43”
“Although Singapore is well-placed in the region and has had a half-century of consolidation, the possibility of displacement as the leading global city in the region is not a fantasy. In ASEAN alone, the competition is significant. The five most populous ASEAN nations are also the least urbanised and account for more than 90% of the total population of ASEAN in 2013. All of them already have leading urban metropolises. As they continue to urbanise, new better-planned metropolitan cities will be developed in these countries. Whether they become a threat or a partner to Singapore in future depends very much on how we prepare ourselves to embrace their rise. In order to fully celebrate the achievements of 50 years of nation-building, we should also revisit the realities about Singapore's position in the world which has driven our Pioneers' sacrifices. We are competing against countries which are still able to do more with less. The steady accumulation of Singapore's reserves has been a tribute to the toil of multiple generations of nation-builders. Any discussion about accessing the benefits of these reserves should not be too dismissive of the relevance of fiscal conservatism. Mdm Speaker, Page: 73 I support the Bill. [Applause.] 4.17 pm”
“Indeed, it is the reason why Singapore also has one of the lowest tax-to-GDP ratios in the world. Together with all the other achievements we celebrate this jubilee year, these attributes have set Singapore apart during the turbulent post-Independence era, ensured Page: 72 that we kept pace with the leading economies of the East-Asian miracle after that, and subsequently gave us with a keen eye for external opportunities which accompanied the surge in emerging market activity after the Cold War. Singapore was always able to do more with less. In that way, our nation carved out a unique position for itself in the region and the world. Singaporeans were always willing to do more with less, with a workforce capable of taking advantage of whatever they had at hand and learning how to do better from whomever they can. My concern is that, that is changing, and a lot of these intangible qualities which contributed to Singapore's original economic success would soon be lost. I recognise that the Government will have to continue to expand spending to prepare for the future as well as to meet the growing aspirations of Singaporeans for more social spending. Nonetheless, I hope that, as it does so, it will not only look at how much our reserves can enable us to increase spending, but also use the lessons of how much we have managed to achieve with the fiscal discipline in the past as a core guiding principle. To conclude, just as the early generations of nation-builders did, we should continue to focus firmly on our economic security. Despite the advances Singapore has made, there remain too many challenges in this regard. In this region alone, our position as the leading global city is the dominant concern.”
“As a matter of priority, Singapore's approach should be, I believe, to expand opportunities for everyone − especially the disadvantaged − to participate in the economy, eliminate vulnerabilities to exploitation and exposure, and emphasise that a future of self-reliance supported by the state is realisable. It is very easy to overlook the fact that the main threat to Singapore's economy remains, as it had been in the past, unemployment. If Singapore's economy loses its relevance in the global economic order, unemployment would rise and remain elevated − that is the scenario that Singapore must counter. The main difference between the policy shifts we see now and those of the past is that we now have more emphasis on "spending increases". Spending increases − whether it is for social support or wage support − are virtually irreversible owing to the stickiness of increased reliance on such spending. You would not even be able to keep such spending increases frozen, because the calls to ensure they keep up with cost increases will be too loud to ignore. In 2005, $579 billion was spent on "Special Transfers Excluding Top-ups to Endowment and Trust Funds". This figure grew to $4.3 billion in 2014 and is now estimated to leap to $5.6 billion in the current fiscal year. When it comes to support schemes, permanent entitlements could turn out to be exclusionary rather than inclusive. From a practical perspective, rapid increases in Government spending could lead to crowding out of the private sector, as well as cause surges in demand that the domestic supply base alone will find difficulty in meeting. While it is true that we still have one of the lowest levels of Government spending in the world as a proportion of GDP, that is not something we need to overturn in a hurry.”
“I have used the same database from the World Bank that I mentioned earlier and focused on those economies for which complete data is available for the period 1975 to 2013 inclusive. The cumulative annual growth rate of GFCE for Singapore exceeded those of prominent economies like Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, the United States and even the Nordic countries. Among Nordic countries, the highest cumulative annual growth rate in constant local currency terms during this period was seen in Norway at 2.9%. This is less than half of the 6.6% increase in average annual terms that Singapore achieved. Where others spend more, they have taken time to reach a level which I believe we should not be in haste to match in much less time. Incidentally, the comparisons I had mentioned produce Page: 71 essentially the same result regardless of whether you carried them out using expenditures measured in constant local currency units or current US dollar. So, we should ask ourselves how much faster we want expenditures to grow and whether an even more rapid pace of growth than we have seen will really bring us closer to our objective. Every Singaporean in distress deserves help, but the reason for more social spending should never be based merely on whether Singapore can afford to. Although many of our fellow citizens still need more help, I do not think the solution is simply for the Government to enact more social spending. Ultimately, nobody wants hand-outs − everybody wants to stand on their own.”
“To address the fact that the value of the asset base moves up and down, I would like to ask if MOF has considered using a more conservative rule where the low end of the value in the probability distribution of the asset portfolio be used instead? Even though systems such as variance at risk are not completely reliable, they can be designed to offer more conservative estimates of value. So, my question is whether the smoothening rules that are used presently are sufficiently conservative in ensuring that a greater proportion of real reserves are preserved in the long term. On my second point, despite the Government's reassurances that it is continuing to adhere to disciplined spending practices, I would just like to express my concern at the gathering momentum of what I perceive to be a shift away from half a century of fiscal conservatism. It is not spending itself that I am concerned with, but the inexorable shift towards large spending increases. It is true that Singapore's spending is at a relatively low level compared to other advanced economies. For 2013, a cross-country comparison shows that among those economies for which data is available from the World Bank, Singapore ranked 46 out of 163 in terms of Government spending when measured by the General Government Final Consumption Expenditure (GFCE). It is also true that depending on which year you choose, the growth rate in such spending could be very low for Singapore − 2014 was a case in point. But a very different picture emerges, Mdm Speaker, when we consider how this has been changing over time. In particular, I would like to point to two aspects of the change: first, the change in the ratio of Singapore's GFCE compared to those of other economies; and second, the growth rate of such spending.”
“Given that Temasek's investment strategy is already challenging, will there come a time when Temasek could feel pressure, no matter how slight, to meet the demands of the growing Budget? As Deputy Prime Minister has mentioned on more than one occasion, Temasek's returns tend to be more volatile and can be quite high when times are good. For instance, the latest Temasek Review reports a one-year return to shareholder of 19.2%. The Review also tells us that the exposure to growth economies is 45%. In terms of geographical region, 42% is invested in Asia, excluding Singapore. In terms of sector, 28% is invested in Financial Services. These exposures are clearly borne out in the fluctuations of Temasek's net portfolio over the last 20 years. The record shows that while the over performance in terms of net portfolio value has been steadily improving, the dips caused by SARS and the Global Financial Crisis were both sharp. Given how much volatility has been increasing in recent years, this is surely a cause for concern and a reason for being more cautious in tapping on Temasek's NIR. If there is recognition of the different nature of the investment remit of Temasek, should we not consider applying a different proportion of usage to the NIR of Temasek, compared to GIC? Page: 70 Specifically, would the Bill allow for a lower limit, say 40% rather than 50%, to be imposed on NIRC for Temasek? The main concern with the switch from the NII framework to the NIR framework is that capital gains, unlike income earnings, are estimated rather than realised. It becomes a technical challenge to define what should be prudent access to gains from the reserves.”
“Page: 69 What I would like to do is to begin by revisiting the issue about the volatility of Temasek Holdings' returns and therefore the possibility of fine-tuning the percentage limit of returns that should be used for spending. Secondly, I would also like to take this opportunity to discuss how this Amendment Bill, even though it has every intention of adhering to fiscal prudence, seems to me, anyway, to be a shift away from fiscal conservatism. During the 2008 debate on the constitutional amendment which first introduced the NIRC framework, the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister explained that Temasek's strategy was evolving, and that it was operating very differently compared to six years before that. Since giving the strategy room to evolve was clearly an advantage, it is not entirely clear if the current Amendment Bill takes full cognisance of the potential repercussions of the commitment it may be holding Temasek's performance to. There are a host of risks to contend with when estimating the value of returns. Even if the investments themselves perform well, there are country risks, exchange rate risks, business cycles. Then, there are the more severe risks associated with fluctuating global economic conditions which is something Singapore will always be more exposed to than others. Finally, Mdm Speaker, there is the impact of pandemics − such as the one MERS is having on South Korea at this very moment. Over the last few decades, Temasek has proven itself more than up to the task in taking these challenges in its stride. However, as our democracy develops, the question should also be asked as to whether there could come a time when the decision we make today becomes a burden on Temasek to deliver results.”
“The first pertains to his reply at the Budget round-up speech on liquidity management should Temasek's expected long-term real returns not match up with its actual returns. The Minister informed the House in the 2008 debate on the NIR framework that with the inclusion of GIC and MAS, the Government does not foresee a shortage of liquid funds should this eventuality come to pass. Does the Minister foresee this prospect with the introduction of Temasek, given its different investment strategies and approaches, and are there specific contingencies that have been drawn up for this purpose beyond those highlighted by the Minister in the 2008 speech? Secondly, has the Government projected the percentage of NIR it has earmarked for the next five years, in view of Temasek's inclusion in the NIR framework? Specifically, how close or how far is the projection from the 50% threshold and how much of a buffer is estimated? Mdm Speaker, the Workers' Party supports this amendment to the Constitution. 4.05 pm Assoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join this debate. The Amendment Bill comes almost seven years after Parliament debated the introduction of the NIRC framework for reserves invested by GIC and MAS in 2008. It has been long anticipated. The intention of moving from the NII framework to the NIRC framework is to increase the amount of funds which the Government of the day can draw upon to finance its Budget. As Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister has just explained, the increase in amount that will become available is substantial, almost 1% of GDP.”
“Mdm Speaker, the inclusion of Temasek Holdings into our Net Investment Returns framework, first announced at this year's Budget, envisages additional monies comprising the Net Investment Returns contributions to be set aside for healthcare, transport, new Changi Terminal 5, domestic security and SkillsFuture, amongst others – all of which are aimed at improving the quality of life of Singaporeans. Including Temasek in the NIR framework allows the Government to expend the NIR for the benefit of Singaporeans. Including Temasek in the NIR framework is the right thing to do by our people who have to face a more challenging and competitive workplace and a fast-changing world Page: 68 where the iron rice bowl has become a relic of the past. Our social safety nets require constant strengthening, improvement and upgrading. A more crowded Singapore has also stressed our infrastructure. We also need to plan for new engines of growth to power the economy and to create and take advantage of opportunities in the future. In the same breadth, the Workers' Party acknowledges that fiscal prudence must represent a fundamental aspect of the Singapore system because Singapore does not have any natural resources. While our self-sufficiency is a virtue, we must also be careful not to make this too much of a mantra, which risks Singaporeans deserving of assistance falling through the cracks. In fact, the unpredictable marketplace of jobs and the reality of looking after loved ones, one's parents in their old age and not to mention children, are more likely to make it difficult to elegantly pigeon-hole individuals who ought to qualify for the different types of assistance currently available. I have two questions for the Minister.”
“Sir, in September last year, three of the five major preschool chains announced they will be increasing their prices from 2015 from $4 to $62, citing soaring operational costs. This is after the median monthly fee for full-day childcare was reported to have risen by $80 in 2013 – the biggest increment in the last eight years. These childcare operators received Government grants in exchange for keeping their fees affordable and need the Ministry's approval to raise their fees. Would the Ministry consider requiring such operators to provide an itemised breakdown of their fee increases? This would be akin to the requirement that CASE made to Shell last month when they did not accept the oil company's vague reasons for raising petrol prices because of the petrol tax rise announced at this year's Budget. CASE noted that the explanation was not acceptable and that Shell did not provide CASE with a breakdown of the cost increases beyond the rise in petrol tax. Would the Minister similarly consider requiring childcare operators to provide a breakdown of rises in the operating costs to provide additional check to ensure that higher costs are not unreasonably passed on to parents? Student Care”
“However, publishing the price of drugs can potentially result in more competitive pricing by pharmaceutical companies and between hospitals even, effectively lowering the cost of drugs to Singaporeans and, in the short to medium term, for the Government, too. Mdm Chair, these calls for greater transparency in the healthcare sector with regard to the pricing of drugs are not new. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, during his closing speech of the Budget debate, identified healthcare financing as a key fiscal challenge, with the Government's projected healthcare expenditure expected to triple to $12 billion by the year 2020, up from $4 billion in 2011. 3.15 pm Would the Ministry consider publishing the price of drugs as one pillar of the strategy to better manage the prospect of rising healthcare cost in Singapore? And if not, can the Minister identify the factors which prevent the Ministry from publishing the prices of drugs in view of rising healthcare expenditure in the years to come? IT Investment for Healthcare”
“Mdm Chair, the MOH's Standard Drugs List does not include the price of drugs, much less a breakdown of the cost of drugs in public or private hospitals, or between private and subsidised patients. The MOH website points to the Pharmaceutical Society of Singapore's website for prices of drugs prescribed for common conditions. But the Pharmaceutical Society of Singapore's website only covers medication for asthma, diabetes and high blood pressure and lipids. The list also does not appear to be updated regularly; it Page: 90 was last updated in September 2013. The Minister mentioned in his speech last year at the official opening of the Mount Elizabeth Novena Hospital that the Government has been a strong advocate of information transparency and wants to work to improve transparency of healthcare charges so that patients can make informed decisions. To this end, would public hospitals take the lead and extend this philosophy to publishing the price of all drugs sold as the next logical step after publishing the cost of surgical procedures, a move which has been well received by many Singaporeans, in order to reduce the information asymmetry for patients and to lower costs in particular? The Minister has also previously mentioned that different cost structures and purchasing decisions, amongst other reasons, account for the flexibility afforded to various hospitals to purchase drugs directly from pharmaceutical manufacturers, even if they are all subject to general subsidy guidelines and that some drugs are used to cross-subsidise others that may be very expensive. To this end, the price of drugs would logically vary at different public and private hospitals.”
“I would like to ask if the Minister would consider working towards new initiatives to alter consumer behaviour to move to lower Singapore's environmental footprint and, separately, to incentivise companies and users to move away from plastic bags which are not reused to more environmentally sustainable products, where it is appropriate in our Page: 124 waste management context. Would NEA consider implementing long-term targets, like in the EU, to move Singaporeans towards greater environmental consciousness as part of its sustainable Singapore 2015 blueprint? Waste Disposal”
“Mdm Chair, a number of my residents who reside at the Jalan Tenaga cluster have asked me what more can be done to improve community efforts at environmental protection and recycling. Some have suggested greater Government intervention to ensure that commonly available plastic bags that are not reused, such as those used to pack kopi, or the can be phased out over the long term in favour of biodegradable cups. Not too different from the CornWare cups available at the Members' Room which are, coincidentally, produced by a Singaporean company. In fact, some hope that the Government can pass a law so that all plastic bags in circulation today can be fully biodegradable instead of the high-density polyethylene (HDP) bags in wide circulation today. However, the application of this positive suggestion is not so straightforward in practice as our waste to incineration plants burn the larger plastic bags that are reused, always disposed by many Singaporeans and it is also open to question how significant the impact would be should biodegradable bags be used instead of HDP bags, given the Singapore waste management ecosystem. There is also the question of the type of biodegradable bag that ought to be introduced because of the differing manufacturing processes that can be equally environmentally unsustainable even if the current HDP bags are certainly an environmental worry as about 1.2 kilogrammes of crude oil is used to manufacture one kilogramme of plastic bags. Mdm Chair, late last year, the European Union (EU) began deliberating whether member states could choose to either ban free plastic bags for shoppers by 2018 or take measures to make sure that the average consumption of such bags drops to 90 a year for each person by 2019 and 40 by 2025 from a high of 200 today.”
“Mdm Chairperson, as it currently stands, full-time caregivers do not qualify for specific transport subsidy under the various LTA and TransitLink-managed concession schemes. They do not qualify for the Workfare Transport concession as they are not deemed to be part of the workforce. However, they do need to travel to accompany their spouses or family members who can be persons with disabilities or mental illnesses and should be considered for a special subsidy or be allowed to apply as a supplementary applicant for the person with disability concession card, for example. I understand the Social Service Office under the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) does provide a transport subsidy to Singaporeans in the appropriate case, especially for those who qualify for financial assistance. However, my understanding from resident caregivers who request for such a subsidy is that they do not qualify for it as a matter of course. In fairness, they may qualify for other subsidies like S&CC and utilities. The prevailing wisdom seems to be that as they are caregivers and are likely to be at home looking after their loved ones, they do not need to travel much. This is not correct. In some cases, transport costs can be quite high. I hope the Ministry, in cooperation with TransitLink and MSF, can look to better assist caregivers holistically, and even more so, if there is little or no family help to support the caregiver. Fare Review Formula”
“The email is actually dated 13 October 2014, and I think this fact can be confirmed by HDB. The final point about nominations for HIP and NRP, and that the Town Council is preferring Hougang to Aljunied. The latest nominations for HIP and NRP are quite instructive. For NRP, one precinct in Hougang has been nominated by the Town Council; four for Aljunied. Page: 34 Two precincts for HIP have been nominated by the Town Council; 16 for Aljunied. There is a reason why, in the earlier years, more Hougang precincts were nominated for HIP and NRP, and that is because Hougang was not given any Main Upgrading or Interim Upgrading projects prior to 2011. And that is the reason.”
“Madam, I refer to the comments made by the Minister of State. According to the expenditure control document, about $40 million is allocated to MND for CIPC projects. These are national funds and every Town Council should be allocated these funds fairly. Madam, I reject the Minister of State's call that my cut is a mischievous distortion of the facts. The allocation extended from MND to the CCC for CIPC resources are publicly available through the Government Gazette. The facts are that for the previous Aljunied Town Council, about $12 million was allocated to the CCC through MND between FY2009 and FY2011. That is about $4 million a year. Nothing has been allocated to AHPETC since 2012. The CCC can work much faster as shown under the previous Town Council management. The Minister of State has said that it takes two hands to clap, and he is right. He should be reminded that it was the Town Council that initiated contact with the CCC to seek CIPC funding to benefit residents. I have personally asked for information on the budget and timings of various nominations and when these should be put up to the CCC. Having said that, it is quite clear that the system, the CIPC nominations system, can be improved in Opposition wards, and should be improved. Can I confirm that the Minister of State would be keen to pursue this, or at least to create a forum where CIPC nominations can be discussed more reasonably, and without any concern about some political interference or delay from one party or another because it does not benefit the residents? The second issue is on the cut with regard to car park upgrading information. The Minister of State's information is wrong. My email to HDB was not dated January 2015 as he suggested, although I do not think this is an intentional error.”
“Secondly, in order to encourage more rental tenants to move to purchase their own apartments, would the Ministry consider loosening restrictions of the Tenant Priority Scheme to make it easier for rental households to purchase their own flats, particularly by extending the scheme to second-timers and by increasing the quota allocation from 10% currently which is shared with other applicants who apply under the resettlement, relocation and the Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme? Finally, would the Ministry consider allowing single mothers to apply for rental housing as a means of reducing their burden and difficulties, especially for single mothers with little or no family support? Rental Flats”
“Sir, the first cut is on carpark upgrading information. The basis of the cut is to request for greater synergy and co-planning with HDB about its plans to upgrade existing car parks under the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council. While I appreciate the assistance provided by HDB Branch staff and Town Council officers, more information can be shared to allow the Town Council to better plan the extent of repair works to better determine the timing of works and to coincide the works with other R&R works so as to minimise disruption to the residents. For example, in the reply to a query about the cyclical repair schedule for HDB car parks at Kaki Bukit, Eunos and Bedok Reservoir wards, HDB replied that most have been upgraded, with the remaining car parks scheduled to be upgraded progressively from 2017 to 2021. However, the Town Council would benefit from information, such as which car parks would be upgraded, rather than a blanket answer which does not assist the Town Council in its planning purposes and planning for future expenditure. Rental Housing Sir, in view of the previously announced plans to increase the stock of rental flats, I would like to ask the Ministry what has been the result of the ramping up of rental housing options. Has there been a reduction in waiting time? If not, what is the source of the bottleneck and does the Ministry intend to build more rental housing?”