S. Vasoo
Singapore
“I would like to ask DPM whether the public as well as the Government-linked companies would be looking at some ways in which jobs could be created to absorb some of the older workers. In the longer term, I think job creation will become an issue, especially when many of the industries in the manufacturing sector are going to hollow out.”
“Our recruitment has been excellent over this past period and our attrition has been relatively low. But I am realistic enough to know that it is not just because of the Ministry of Education, the economy has helped a lot. I believe that I have answered most of the questions posed by Members.”
“Can I ask the Minister of State, when he claims that the LRT is of world-class standards, but the Member for Sembawang is complaining that there are so many frequent breakdowns, what world-class standard are we talking about?”
“May I ask the Minister whether the viewpoints of the commuters and the private bus operators will be solicited in his review? Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Sir, we are in touch with the private bus operators and we would definitely take the views of the public into consideration in the context of the overall framework of the public transport system.”
“It would be the last resort, as the Minister has put it, to institutionalise persons because, by institutionalising them, one breaks them up from the family, and family dynamics are disrupted. Therefore, it is very important to ensure that we have other means of rehabilitating young persons and juveniles within a community setting.”
“All the time, we emphasise on marriage as a partnership. We also accept, as one of our core values, the family as a basic unit. It is, therefore, desirable that the wording, at the beginning of this Bill, should reinforce this value. Under clause 13, the Minister will have powers to exclude certain classes of persons.”
The complete record
Every one of 879 lines we hold for S. Vasoo, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 18.
“Sir, it is very important and urgent that we find ways to strengthen support to the family, particularly support to working couples, so that the more support we can provide to them, the companies will become viable. When companies become viable, then we would be able to harness more workers to work within the setting. Otherwise, if we do not have viable companies that can attract younger couples, many of these policies that we talk about remain as rhetoric. So these issues, I hope, can be urgently looked into and the Committee under Mr Lim Boon Heng will address these issues fairly quickly and come out with a more coordinated policy that will encourage families, not only to care effectively for their children, but also to contribute to their companies. This will therefore help families continue to be viable and effective as well as help companies to move ahead and respond to the changing economic circumstances. Mrs Lim Hwee Hua (Marine Parade): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me begin at Act 1, Scene 1. Superwoman rises at 6.00 in the morning, ensures that her domestic helper has prepared breakfast for her family, especially her son who needs to catch the school bus at 6.30 am. In between, she catches snippets of Channel News Asia for the latest news that she might need at work. She lugs along her hand carried baggage to work in a taxi as she is scheduled to travel at 5.00 in the afternoon to Hong Kong for business. During lunch, she rings her son's Chinese teacher to discuss arrangements for remedial work on Saturdays. Before she has had a chance to respond to all her e-mails, she realises that she must rush to the airport or she will miss her flight.”
“And nobody would want to go into this field provided there is adequate support from the Ministry of Community Development and Sports as well as the Government itself. The other area that we could examine is the need to develop a database which should be made available to companies, that there are retired housewives and mothers who live in the neighbourhood and who want to provide family-based childcare services. If a good database can be maintained and made available to companies, then it would be a source of support. Such databases, at the moment, are not collated. I think some agencies, like family service agencies and other agencies providing childcare services, can provide a value-added service in this direction. The other aspect that we need to look at is the flexi-work scheme. With the move towards IT and other information technology advancement, the work world is likely to change. Therefore, there is a necessity for companies to relook at how work could be organised in such a way that working mothers can do their work within their home setting and also have flexible work arrangements within the work setting. This is a matter of scheduling and reorganising work schedules. I hope that more encouragement and development in this direction can be forthcoming. With these changes in work arrangements, it would help to provide more support for younger working couples because the work world is going to attract many of these people, retain them to be productive workers and contribute to the economic development of these companies. One has got to respond fairly quickly in organising friendly work practices within the work world.”
“I feel that the Ministry of Education, with the recommendations of the committee, could look at how these could be implemented as quickly as possible. Sir, the other point that I would like to bring to the attention of the House is that there are a few urgent priorities that need to be looked into. First, we need to provide more incentives to companies who are setting up workplace childcare places, as recommended by Dr Jennifer Lee. And there is this problem that MND is not giving sufficient incentives for companies to implement such a scheme. The plot ratio takes into consideration these childcare centres. If you look at the childcare centre, it is a social service. It is a programme like schools, hospitals, clinics and various other facilities. They are social services which enhance the human social capital. Such a service that is undertaken by companies should receive greater attention and incentives. So there should be tax exemptions for companies to take an active interest by providing the support. We also need to look at the setting up of childcare service for children below the age of 18 months because many parents want to work but they are deterred by the fact that they have to look after younger children below 18 months or there are problems related to childcare. Such a service has to be stepped up. Private operators, voluntary organisations and other interested groups can be encouraged to look into the provision of such a service. Better incentives and support should be given to these groups. It is a very specialised service as they are very young children who require more close attention and care. This means that more resources, in terms of manpower, would be required.”
“Today, if you look at the average cost of childcare, it is about $450 and above. Therefore, it becomes a burden to many average working families. So there is a need to revise it. Childcare sick leave is only three days, paternity leave is at the moment being implemented, and other childcare leave is very limited. So we have to examine it and I hope this would be actively reviewed. Workplace childcare services also need to be looked at because we want to encourage clusters of companies coming together to promote workplace childcare services and we need to study the kind of support to be given to these companies that are interested. Some of them may not have economies of scale but I think we can look at the clustering of all these companies coming together to provide childcare services in urban areas where many young couples work. The maternity leave which is now extended to the third child may need to be looked at in terms of post-natal kind of leave where the mother needs to support a new-born and a month's leave may not necessarily help her to prepare and wean the child because of the requirement to go back to work. So this can be re-examined. The maid levy has to be looked at more closely because there have been suggestions and viewpoints from many working mothers to re-look at this. And I hope that the committee will actively restudy these issues that have been raised. The other aspect which we need to assess is the single session schools and whether single session schools are going to be actively promoted. I hope that this will be stepped up so that it would be a solution to the problem of giving support to families, especially families with younger primary school-going children. This, I think, should not remain as lip-service.”
“We deal with less social problems, less family breakdowns and other related family problems and in the end it is going to be less cost to the society in any case. Therefore, all the more, the various views expressed by Dr Lily Neo and Dr Jennifer Lee should be given serious attention. I hope that the committee under the charge of Minister Lim Boon Heng would be able to look at how we can address some of these issues related to family support and family-friendly work practices. I think we need to review some of the policies which have impact on the family. They are rather segmented and many of these social policies related to families are not comprehensive and well coordinated, and there is a need to re-visit some of these family support policies. I am sure Mr Lim's committee is actively looking into these and I hope that his committee is able to come out with more comprehensive policies that will provide concerted support for families. This, I am certain, his committee is looking at and they would not put up knee-jerk reaction policies. More often than not, many of the policies that we have known are policies that are, to some extent, knee-jerk, and they are not going to produce any comprehensive impact in support of family life. More importantly, Sir, we need to re-visit family-support policies. Aside from promoting more family-friendly workplaces, it is important to look at these policies because these policies are fundamental to ensuring that we have strong families, and strong families mean better workplaces, and better workplaces mean more viable companies, and we are able to make better economic progress. Sir, we need to look at the childcare grants. The childcare grant of $180 may not necessarily be able to meet the increased cost in childcare.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion moved by Dr Lily Neo. Sir, there is an increase in the number of dual-income families. More than 50% of the workforce comprise of working couples, and it is projected that it is likely to increase to 70% the next decade. This therefore calls for urgent attention as to what support we can give to working couples. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 3.37 pm Sir, it is inevitable that more companies will need to move towards family-friendly work practices. Because if these companies do not move towards family-friendly work practices, they are likely to lose younger working couples. It becomes less attractive and therefore companies will inevitably need to think of ways to attract and retain younger working couples. I see that it is very important for us to maintain a balance between friendly-work practices and also the viability of companies. We cannot separate them and look at each of them on its own merits. Therefore, to ensure that the companies are viable, we need also to ensure that they provide good support for their workers. Because workers who are faced with various family-related problems also become very unproductive workers and they incur cost to the company, and the company is also likely to become less viable because of these problems. So there are no complete solutions to this whole matter because we are dealing with lifespan issues, and lifespan issues call for a completely life-long examination of how we can respond to human development. I think that nobody disagrees that there is a need for us to look at ways to strengthen the family because strengthening family and giving family the best of support we can, enriches the nation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary has been acupuncturing away his points. What I want to ask him is what measures are there in terms of monitoring abuses and poor standard of practice? What measures have been instituted or put in place? Because there are likely to be abuses and other related problems, how are these going to be dealt with in the interest of the public?”
“I see that such a reason is persuasive but, it is unconvincing. Sir, all that I am appealing is, should we not protect disabled children by ensuring they are not denied education like normal children? All the more we should protect them, because they are most likely to be neglected in their education. Therefore, I see no cogent reason for disabled children to be excluded from Compulsory Education. Sir, in this respect, are we not discriminating against disabled children? One may argue we are not, but by excluding them, we are keeping them out to some extent from the mainstream. Sir, it is good that we should accord the same Compulsory Education status to all children, irrespective of their background. What I would like to say is that it is not Compulsory Education requirement that will have an impact on the development of our children. It is not the legislation that counts. Many countries have Compulsory Education, but many children remain unschooled. It is the software which is very important, eg, good teachers, principals, good schooling culture, which will make the difference in the learning of our children. In this respect, I would like to ask the Minister whether we are taking more bolder steps to make primary education more effective and exciting, and to ensure that it is able to maximise the potential and provide a very good headstart for our children themselves. Sir, many countries have Compulsory Education, but many children are not able to get the best from education itself. So I hope that the Ministry of Education would be deploying more resources to provide the best of support we can for very young children who will be entering into our primary schools.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate. Claire Chiang has given such a long exposition on the whole issue so I shall be very brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. I support the Bill on Compulsory Education in principle. However, I have a few reservations to make, which I hope will be addressed by the Minister. Sir, a very simple question that I will ask is: why should we make education for children compulsory up to Primary 6? The issue is very simple, but I think there are complex problems related to this. I hope we are not giving the wrong signal to people that we now have a lower expectation in education. I am afraid that such a benchmark is not in sync with our aspirations to make Singapore a learning nation and give priority to educate people to the fullest. Sir, fixing Compulsory Education at Primary 6 is just saying to some people, "Play in the primary league, that is enough". I hope this is not the thing that we want to promote. Sir, surely we can be more ambitious than that. What has happened to our Singapore 21 drive? That, Sir, is what I am asking. I think we should be bold and make education compulsory up to at least Secondary 3, if not Secondary 4. This is at least to ensure that we have a more educated workforce and prevent premature school leaving, which is quite conspicuous at lower secondary school level. I think we should address this upper end of the issue so that we can tackle educational wastage and, perhaps, enhance the potential of this group of people who otherwise may drift out of the secondary education net. Sir, I am also disappointed that we have excluded disabled children or special children from the purview of Compulsory Education. We may argue that they have special needs and they should be catered for separately.”
“Question No. 8. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD FLATS (Revision of income ceiling) 8. Dr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for National Development whether the income ceiling for application of Housing and Development Board flats will be revised. The Minister of State for National Development (Dr John Chen Seow Phun) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB recently reviewed its public housing schemes as part of Government's effort to help lower-income families own their first homes. Under the Special Housing Assistance Programme (SHAP), the monthly household income ceiling for the 3-Room Buy-Back Scheme and Rent and Purchase Scheme has been raised from $1,500 to $2,000. Similarly, the monthly household income ceiling for the Low-Income Family Incentive Scheme, an easy mortgage loan scheme for the purchase of 4-room budget or smaller HDB flats, has been raised from $1,500 to $2,000. In addition to SHAP, Singapore families with monthly household income of up to $8,000 are eligible to purchase a new 4-room or 5-room flat from HDB. To support extended family living, HDB also allows multi-tier families with a total household income of up to $12,000 per month to purchase a subsidised flat from HDB. The current income ceilings are adequate to cater to the housing needs of the vast majority of Singaporean families. HDB has no plan to revise the income ceilings at this juncture. MEDISHIELD (Age of coverage) 9. Mr Hawazi Daipi asked the Minister for Health if his Ministry has any plan to raise the age of coverage for MediShield.”
“Sir, I am trying to ask the Minister whether he would relook at the whole issue by encouraging younger people to have family formation and see whether we could be more generous by looking at other incentives which would be necessary to support population growth.”
“Sir, even if our parliamentary colleagues are going to give suggestions on the issue of "baby bonus", the support from Government is just lukewarm.”
“Can I ask the Minister why are they so clinical? Why can we not be more generous, since people are responding to the call?”
“Therefore, it is very important to ensure that there is renewal of its leadership in the organisation itself, particularly the National Council of Social Service. So I want to find out whether these changes do allow the Council itself to undertake leadership renewal within its rank and thus encourage younger people to be involved in the organisation. The third area is the ownership of the National Council of Social Service by the voluntary sector itself. The Bill covers an element of nomination by the Ministry of Community Development as well as by election process. So I would like to find out whether these changes will, in any way, have an impact on the issue of ownership by the voluntary organisations of the Council itself. What I am trying to say is that it is very important that we ensure the participation of volunteers and that the voluntary organisations are entrenched and further strengthened so that we will be able to encourage more people to take an active interest in trying to promote problem solving within the community. I would like to ask the Minister whether the ownership by the voluntary sector is further enhanced by such changes that are being proposed. Sir, with that note, I would like to support the amendments.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the proposed amendments. Sir, it is really important that we have good leadership in the voluntary organisations. The very fact that they are voluntary in nature, we tend to think that the people who are managing them become less accountable. This is not necessarily so. If all voluntary organisations are to become effective and responsive to the needs of not only the low income families, but also other families that require help, then we should have an effective management. I am pleased to note that the amendments would strengthen the capacity of the Council to respond to new needs and new challenges. It is important at this juncture that voluntary organisations, not only the National Council of Social Service, but also other relevant community sectors, look at how they can meet the needs of those who require assistance. And with the new issues and problems related to families, children and young persons, it is very important that the organisation undertakes a review to see how its leadership has the capacity to mobilize the participation of volunteers in the organisation and make it more responsive. What I would like to find out from the Minister is whether the restructuring that is undertaken at the Council will provide that flexibility for it to garner more community support and also to instruct and guide these organisations that are affiliated to the Council to meet new challenges. Sir, the other crucial factor that needs to be addressed is the leadership in the organisation itself, particularly the leadership in the National Council of Social Service. As we know, in most voluntary organisations, the leadership is graying.”
“Therefore, can we ensure that we have in the civil service people who are of quality so that we are able to make further progress? Sir, the salary revision and the increases have implications on consumer cost and create some inflation. I would like to ask the DPM whether one would expect an inflationary trend which can affect our economy to some extent. With all these changes, would it have any spiralling effect on the cost of living of the ordinary people? Since the last salary revision, have we been able to attract good people into the civil service? Are the attrition rates manageable? What is more important is: are we getting people with good public service attitude into the civil service since the changes instituted at the last revision? Is the civil service showing dividend in having made further progress by attracting good people into Government? In the final analysis, we have to ask ourselves whether a better civil service is a good insurance for the working class Singaporeans. It is very important for Singaporeans to examine this. I must say that it is very important, looking at the Hong Kong context and many other countries nearer our region, that when we cannot attract honest and good people into Government, ultimately even the poor has to pay the price. Many of the poor, the working class, are paying the price for having incompetent people in Government and we should not let this happen in Singapore. Sir, I support the salary revision proposed by the Government.”
“As a result, the better off will leave because of instability. I studied in Hong Kong and I had lots of friends who studied together with me in my post-graduate studies. Prior to 1997, many of my good friends have migrated because of the fear and concern of political instability in the future. There are a lot of talented people who have gone to Canada, the United States and Australia. I have gone back to revisit them but I could not find some of them. This is real. I shared, studied and lived with them in the hostel. Today, many of them are in many other places other than Hong Kong because of political instability. As a result, Hong Kong has lost many of its talents to many of the developed countries. Sir, in the end, I say that if we do not have good people in Government and the civil service, we will be no better and we cannot guarantee that this cannot happen to Singapore provided that we ensure that we have good people who can be attracted into politics and Government. If we are not careful, we will suffer the same fate. So it is better that we give our able people in Government and the private sector respectable rewards and incentives. Sir, while we reward the capable in Government, we should also take care of the well being of the working class, ie, the heartlanders. The cost of living is expected to increase and it is important that basic services such as education, health, housing, transport and PUB charges continue to be affordable. I would like to ask the DPM whether such costs will remain reasonable and affordable. How would the Government continue to look after the interests of the working class? What plans does it have because we are moving towards rewarding good Government servants, good Administrative Officers?”
“Therefore, it is very important for us in Singapore to attract people of quality and, I say, most importantly, people with integrity, into the civil service and politics. In order to do so, we need to reward them adequately and also provide them incentives. This is a good insurance for Singaporeans because we continuously need honest and capable people in Government not only to look after our assets but to build our assets further. We have accumulated more than $80 billion but we will have to look after it to build it further so that we will remain viable and versatile. Sir, imagine what poor government can do to the lives of Singaporeans when dishonest and less able people are attracted into the civil service and politics. Can we make progress? Not too distant time, we know of the Lim Yew Hock Government. See what has happened? We had a corrupt civil service. We had inefficient and not competent people managing it. Many Singaporeans suffered. Their lives were no better until we had a change of Government in 1959. So it is not too distant. We should remember that this is not too far in history and I hope people do not have short memories that such a problem can happen. In many places, such a problem has come about. Our public resources and funds can be squandered by people who are dishonest and incompetent. We will all end up as losers as each of us has to carry at the end of the day the public debt created by incompetents who have found their way into government. This is happening in many places and I am sure Singaporeans can read about it and the problems are quite real. We have seen this happening right now in Latin America, in the Balkans, in Africa, in Asia and nearer in our region. People are suffering as a result of rampant government corruption.”
“The question is to try and see how we can provide them respectable incentives and rewards in order that we can get them to give their best. Sir, for the working class and the average workers and the families in the heartland, we have to ask ourselves whether we would be better off if we have dishonest and incompetent people managing the Government. I am sure we would not be better off. We will be worse off. So the question is: how do we, as Singaporeans, make sure that we attract the best possible people into the public sector? I am sure Members will agree with me that an effective civil service and a sound political leadership together with a hardworking population are key factors to promote economic and social progress of any nation. We have seen this happening in the United Kingdom. They attract reasonably talented people into the civil service. We have seen this happening in Ireland. Ireland was at one time not really making progress but it has reformed and changed. It is making very good progress today. The United States, Canada and new emerging places have undergone reforms. Even, as Members know, Poland, which was a very planned economy, today has changed. The leadership has changed. They have been able to attract talented people into the Government of Poland. Mexico is changing. South Korea, in fact, is also undergoing reform and changes, despite the problems of the chaebo. Sir, the problems have been created by all these chaebos. They are trying to clean it up. As Members know, it requires good people to think through what can be done. Good government is a valuable asset to people as lives can become better.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. Sir, salary revision both in the private sector and the public sector attracts tremendous attention. What is important for us is to ask ourselves whether salary revision is essential. I think it is essential in order that one has to provide some rewards and incentives to attract the best, and one cannot escape this, whether in the low-income group, the middle income or the top bracket, the revision is essentially necessary. At the same time, we should ask ourselves how can we attract good, honest people, people with integrity and ability, into the various sectors. I think that is the basic question that we have to ask ourselves, that if we do not pay respectable rewards and incentives to people, could we attract them, sustain them, or would we in the long run be worse off? These are basic questions that we have to ask ourselves and the answer is obvious. If we need to have a versatile organisation, versatile enterprise, versatile Government, then we must try and attract the best into the public sector and also into the private sector. The private sector always attracts the best all the time because they reward the best through various measures and incentives. Sir, the world is changing. We are not competing amongst ourselves. We are competing with people outside and in the international arena. The world has become complex. Knowledge has changed. There are now borderless industries, ideas, travel and these are very complex issues that we need to tackle. And would Singapore and Singaporeans be able to face these challenges of a complex nature and how do we prepare people and encourage and recruit people in the public sector? I think that is a very important question that we all have to ask ourselves.”
“Sir, with the relocation of labour intensive industries, will the problem be likely to be aggravated? If that is the case, are there any proactive steps that we are taking? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Sir, Dr Vasoo raised a point which is very valid, a point which concerns not only MTI but also the other Ministries greatly, ie, given the new trends, the knowledge economy and the fact that at least for some years to come salary ranges will stretch out, and those who are unskilled will find it more and more difficult to find good work in Singapore, how should we best accommodate them without reducing them to subsidy cases in the housing estates. The issue is being reviewed by all Ministries to see how we can bring work closer to them so that they can spend part of their time looking after their grandchildren, part of their time attending to their own household affairs and, maybe when they are free, doing some part-time work. In the old days, we used to separate out industrial estates from housing areas because they were polluting, they needed space and heavy equipment was involved. But in the new economy, there will be many industries which do not require this generous allocation of spaces, and which can be brought closer to housing estates and therefore within easier commuting distances. We are now looking at master planning in Singapore to see how we can better bring work into the housing estates, so that part-time and irregular time work can be more readily available to those who would otherwise be structurally unemployed.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether we can examine the extent of the problems in future, particularly the problems affecting the older workers who are unskilled and uneducated. With the relocation of the labour intensive industries, is the problem likely to be aggravated? What concrete steps will the Ministry be taking besides retraining to assist these older workers? At the same time, I would like to find out whether there is a mismatch between the manpower that is available, the older workers, and the jobs that are out in the market. If this is the case, could we take a better integrated approach in trying to follow through these workers who are unable to be deployed for employment? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Sir, there is a limit to what we can do to bring down the unemployment rate without causing economic inefficiency to the system as a whole. I believe we are now below 3% again. If not yet, then we are likely to be quite quickly. If we try too hard to lower the natural unemployment rate further, we may end up causing unnecessary inefficiency to other parts of the economy. The Department of Statistics will study the problem in greater detail and if there are practical solutions that we can take, we will. But I do not think we should distort the entire economy just to bring that number down. It was a major problem in 1998, and maybe early 1999. It is no longer a major problem now.”
“When people suggest these things, it may appear reasonable at first glance, but there are many other implications involved, which I think need to be thought through carefully before we implement. Finally, there was one last point he made about whether, in the special upgrading works, we are going to compensate them if an acquisition is involved. The answer categorically is no. The special upgrading works do not involve any acquisition. It is just a matter of lift upgrading or other types of works which would require selective groups of residents to vote. There is no question about Government acquiring the flats for any purpose. Mr Speaker, I think I have answered all the questions that have been raised. I thank the Members once again for their support.”
“On flower boxes and other safety features, HDB informed me, when I was looking at the killer litter issue, that they in fact did incorporate flower troughs in the design of several blocks of flats in Pasir Ris and Queenstown. I believe that was about five years ago. It was one of the design innovations that HDB embarks upon on a regular basis, arising again out of requests by some residents who say that they would like to plant flowers. But five years down the road, they have gone back to revisit the situation and they find that, lo and behold, instead of flowers in the troughs, you have all sorts of other stuff in the troughs. So it is being used for rubbish disposal, for storage, for anything, but putting flowers. So another well-meaning gesture goes down the drain. I do not think we should go and start this process all over again. But what really worried me about that particular design innovation was not so much the fact that they were using it to put rubbish, but that it could be a receptacle for breeding mosquitoes. The question of dengue fever and breeding of Aedes mosquitoes is still a big problem for high rise estates, and it has not disappeared. It is still there. People are careless, people are either ignorant or they just could not care less. But the Environment Ministry still has to go around putting pressure on town councils to keep chasing residents to make sure that they do not breed mosquitoes. And dengue fever is not a laughing matter. Every year, there are people who die from dengue fever and there are many others who suffer from dengue fever and get very ill. So I have told HDB that if they solve the problem, make sure that they do not create other problems.”
“For example, I know that there are many management corporations who do not allow the flat owners within their estate to renovate their flats, to change their windows or to do other things of that nature, because it may mar the general outlook of those particular blocks. I think it would be too sweeping a statement to say that HDB's rules and regulations are over-stifling. Take the three examples that he mentioned, for example, parking rules. Why are there parking rules, why can HDB not encourage friends and relatives to visit by, say, waiving fees? This, indeed, is being done. I think most Members of Parliament who have made a request on behalf of their residents will find that HDB has been quite accommodating in this respect. But there is a certain limit. There are certain times and certain areas where the answer is no, and the answer is no simply because the residents themselves object. Why? Because if it so happens that their block is next to a neighbourhood centre, on Sunday, all the customers of the shops would come and park their cars there and shop, and instead of having friends and relatives coming to visit them, it would actually be free parking for the benefit of the shops in the area. When Members of Parliament put this proposal up, they know that, on the ground, there are certain problems associated with just opening it up completely. That is the reason why in some areas there is free parking and some other areas, there is not. So HDB has been accommodating and will continue to be accommodating in such instances. But for every rule that they change, while that benefit is appreciated by one group, at the same time, another group would be quite against it.”
“Under the Technopreneur Home Office scheme, it requires the business to register with NSTB to meet certain criteria in order to be allowed to register their office in an HDB flat. This, of course, is different from using the HDB flat for businesses. I think we know that many people use their HDB flats to conduct small businesses. Some do sewing; some do other work, like making boxes and so on. There are also others who use their flats for drafting, like some architects who use their flats for doing their work at home, and many people, of course, who telecommute, work from home. So that is quite in order. So long as they do it without creating a nuisance to their neighbours, HDB does not have any rules against it. But what the THO scheme does is that it allows the entrepreneur to register his office address as his HDB flat. That is the special requirement or special dispensation that is being given to these start-up companies. So this Amendment Bill does not actually open up the scheme to all commercial enterprises but only to those registered by the NSTB under the THO scheme. But having said that, of course, we will continue to monitor the scheme on an on-going basis, and if it does not create any disamenities, I see no reason why we cannot extend the scheme later on. Mr Tay also made several other points. I think the general point he made was that HDB should actively revise and relax out-dated rules and regulations. I do not think it would be a fair statement to say that HDB's rules and regulations are so stringent as to stifle creativity or innovation. In fact, I wonder whether the rules that are enacted by, say, the management corporations of private estates, are not as rigorous, if not more so.”
“I think what the Members can do is to inform these residents who are either not working, who are retired, or who are low-income families, that there are schemes available in the upgrading package which will allow them either to defer their payment for up to a year or even longer to stretch their repayments, or even to avail themselves of schemes whereby they do not have to pay upfront at all, if they can demonstrate that it is not within their capacity to pay, but to pay only at the end when they sell off their flats, if they were to sell off their flats. So it is really a deferred payment scheme. But, of course, such schemes are not available to all, only for those who demonstrate that they cannot afford. So we will make it a point to make sure that those who cannot afford will be given assistance and in such a way that they will not lose the opportunity to benefit from this scheme. And we will make sure that it is not an academic exercise. Mr Iswaran also asked about frivolous proposals, what happens if some residents were to come up and say that they want something to be done, which he would consider frivolous. I think I would entrust this responsibility to the Members of Parliament. If they feel that the proposal is worth considering and they bring it up to my Ministry, I would take it that it has passed the test of the Members of Parliament's scrutiny and therefore it cannot be frivolous. Anything that comes up to the Ministry is not frivolous. But if it is frivolous, then I do not expect it to come up. The last point I would like to address is Mr Tay Beng Chuan's point about the home office. I think he may have been mistaken because the amendments do not allow HDB flats to be used for any commercial purpose.”
“So, how do we within the existing budget, within the amount of the money that has been allocated for upgrading, try to accommodate such requests? In the first place, should we have such an additional option? The answer is yes, I think we should. In the second place, how do we work it, how do we make it happen in such a way that there is equity? This is where we have a selective polling and the requirement for those who benefit directly and who vote yes, pay for it. And the Government on its part will also allocate part of its MUP budget for the purpose of embarking on these selective upgrading works. Mr Seng Han Thong, and I think Dr Vasoo also, asked whether the cost of sharing will be affordable. Will it be too high, therefore making it an academic exercise, as it were? I mean, what is the point if they cannot afford? I have two points to make here in response to the Members. The first point is that we will have a fair co-payment formula. What that co-payment formula will be must vary from project to project, and it depends on the type of work that is going to be undertaken. So I cannot at this point in time tell the Members what that particular percentage will be. But we will make it a point that it will be a fair percentage and the Government's share will be the majority share. What about those who cannot afford to pay?”
“But the total budget is a generous one, and the co-payment by the residents is minimal. The value that they get is very much more than what they pay. So this Bill is not about increasing the MUP budget. It is about giving the residents more options during their MUP. It is in a way a bonus for those residents who benefit directly from the works. If we are talking about lift upgrading for segmented flats, as Mr Iswaran will be able to tell you, not every resident is going to benefit from it. The lifts are already there. They do stop at some of the floors. If we were to ask the residents who already have a lift that stops on their floor, whether they would like to vote yes for the lift upgrading, I think the answer is quite obvious. So really it is a bonus for residents who do not have this benefit today but who will be benefiting directly from such works. Therefore, on the basis of fairness, on the principle of equity, it is the residents who are benefiting directly who should be co-sharing this cost with the Government. On top of this, as I have explained earlier, these works do not come cheap. They are expensive. And I think it is a very good test of whether you really need such upgrading works to be carried out if you are also required to co-pay. If we were to go around and say, "Look, this is free, would you like to have it, I do not think we would be here in this House debating this issue today." And I think such manna from heaven, as the Member has suggested just now, does not come very often. The fact remains that this is a necessity for many residents. I think we all recognise that, many Members of Parliament also recognise that.”
“It allows residents, in consultation with their Members of Parliament, if they really desire such additional works, to vote for these special works, like lift upgrading, and by so doing, to signal their intention and their agreement to co-pay part of that cost. In other words, this is an additional option for them. We are not taking anything away. We are saying, "Look, if you really feel that this is necessary, then here is another choice for you, here is another option." And then once we get past that hurdle, the next thing we need to do is to work out the mechanics of it, such as how do we decide whether to proceed or not, what constitutes majority vote, how do we decide that there is this very strong endorsement, and so on and so forth. So we have for want of a better percentage taken the same percentage that we do for the other polling exercises that we conduct for upgrading programmes. We use 75% yes vote as an indication of strong support. Members have asked why should they pay in the first place. Mr Ang Mong Seng gave several reasons why it is not fair to get the residents to pay, that it should be the Government that should be paying for it. I think, in the first place, the upgrading package under the MUP is already a very generous package. There is a budget per flat for MUP. The budget ranges from $40,000 to $60,000 per flat for MUP, depending on whether there is a space-adding item or not. And this budget of $40,000 to $60,000 per flat allows a certain amount of work to be done. There is a certain list of works that is required to be done under the standard package - precinct works, block works, and even some works within the flat. At the last Budget debate, I had announced the revised budget for MUP which involves more works within the flat.”
“Be that as it may, there are many of these blocks around. They do not meet the lift upgrading criteria set by HDB. These criteria are put in place in order to make sure that in embarking on the lift upgrading exercise, there is a certain financial discipline involved. As it is already, the HDB has undertaken under the Main Upgrading Programme in the standard package to upgrade all those blocks which do meet the lift upgrading criteria. Here, we are talking about something like 3,000 over blocks. As we progress in the Main Upgrading Programme, the lifts will be upgraded to give direct lift access to the residents in these 3,000 blocks. So we are coming back to the issue of what do we do with the segmented blocks. We all know it is an extremely expensive exercise. But at the same time we also realise that the issue of mobility for the aged is a real problem. The IMC on the Ageing Population has made this recommendation, as Mr Seng pointed out, that the HDB should retrofit its blocks in order to make sure that the aged can grow old graciously in situ, in other words, to remain where they are in the flat and not have to move out. HDB, in fact, has already embarked on such an exercise to retrofit most if not all of the blocks. As I explained before, there is a certain financial constraint involved in trying to upgrade all the blocks. There is a certain financial discipline that they have to observe, and this upgrading programme must comply with certain criteria. So the purpose of this particular Amendment Bill really is to give HDB that flexibility to do more, over and above what is currently being done under the standard package of the MUP.”
“This is the reason why the Ministry and the HDB, in response to many of these requests, came up with this particular amendment to the Bill to introduce what is called "special upgrading works" in order to give the HDB greater flexibility to do more, in addition to what is being done in the standard package and in the space-adding items, ie, to do more for residents during the Main Upgrading Programme. One of the common requests on the wish-list of Members of Parliament is lift upgrading for those blocks which do not meet the HDB lift upgrading criteria. Right now, such blocks would not have their lifts upgraded. The reason why this is so, we have discussed in this House many times. Lift upgrading is an extremely expensive exercise. As Mr Iswaran pointed out just now, to install a new lift shaft and new lifts can cost anything between $500,000 and $1 million or more. When we are talking about lift upgrading for these special blocks, those Members who are familiar with the issue, who have such blocks in their constituencies, the so-called segmented blocks, would appreciate the exercise. We are not talking of just installing one or two additional lift shafts. We can be talking about three or even more lift shafts. If we are talking about three lift shafts, we are talking about $3 million and dividing this across, say, 70 or 100 residents. That is a lot of money. We are not just talking about one or two blocks. We are really talking about, throughout the whole of Singapore, something like 900 to 1,000 blocks. These are the blocks of flats which were built before 1990 and which were built with this special design. They were popular at that time because there was a certain degree of privacy involved in these blocks and quite a few residents actually opted for these blocks.”
“It is the public and social responsibility of HDB to ensure that many of these flats, particularly the segmented blocks where there is a large number of growing elderly, will benefit from the changes that are going to be introduced. I hope the Minister will ensure that the charges are really within the means of the elderly retirees who have very little income. Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, I thank all the Members who have supported this Bill. I do not think anybody has objected in principle to the idea of having special upgrading works in order to give the HDB more flexibility to improve the upgrading package. However, the Members have made several very important points which I would like to address. First of all, the question of why selective polling and whether it will destroy the concept of community living or collective responsibility, as Dr Teo Ho Pin and other Members mentioned just now. It is an important point because the concept of collective responsibility, of sharing in the maintenance and the cost of upgrading of common properties, is an important pillar of communal living in HDB estates. So whether or not they use the playground or the Senior Citizens' Corner, or even the linkways, they pay their share of the cost of upgrading and of maintaining these common facilities. Indeed, this is the case for the standard package of the Main Upgrading Programme. It includes many of the items that were mentioned by the Members, booster pumps, Senior Citizens' Corners, linkways, playgrounds, etc. But that is the standard package. Some of the items that are desired by residents may not be in the standard package. They are outside the scope of the standard package of the MUP.”
“Knowing that more than half of them are going to be retirees with very little income, I would say that with the very exorbitant payment for lift upgrading, it will be very difficult for the residents to take advantage of it. It will be a tremendous pity that many of them may have to struggle and manage to find access to their flat in the near future. Sir, what is important is to make it really affordable. The question is: how affordable is affordable? Many of these residents are going to appreciate what the Minister will do because each time they press the button, they will remember the Minister for enabling them to get access. If the prices are expensive, each time they press the button, they are going to be very sorry. They may press the wrong button and it may never get to his notice. They will be remembering him for life too if they cannot really find access. The real question is the question of affordability. The HDB is one of the prime movers in making estates accessible. The Ministry has a building code which I am sure HDB was one of the prime movers in proposing this to make estates accessible. Building codes ensure that buildings are accessible. I think the onus is on HDB to ensure that the buildings are accessible. These are common user properties. Being common user properties, it is obviously the role of HDB to ensure that these buildings are accessible to residents, whether they are disabled or elderly. Realising that a large number of them are going to be the elderly population, they will thank the Minister if he takes their interest into consideration. I would suggest a very low co-payment that will make it really affordable, and there is no need for a second ballot because many of these estates have already undergone the MUP itself.”
“Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. First of all, I would like to commend the Minister for introducing the Bill to amend the Housing and Development Act. It is indeed very important that the HDB looks very seriously at the estates which have more elderly population. Those would be the estates that are going to benefit very much from the special upgrading works. Sir, as the Minister would appreciate, when residents first moved to these estates, they had very little choice because the flats were balloted and many of these flats are about 30 years old which require a good face-lift and upgrading. Many of the old flats would be benefiting from the Main Upgrading Programme. Sir, with regard to the design issue, many of these residents have very little hand in the design because they are designed by architects. When these flats were first conceived in the planning stage, they were thinking of a very vibrant and young population that never ages. That is a serious problem and many of these places have aged today. I am glad that the Minister, being the Chairman of the Inter-Ministerial Committee, has realised that there is a need to really provide accessibility to the ageing population. Sir, what will happen is the problem of affordability. In many of these old estates, there are the retirees and the elderly who are not fully employed and many of them have low income. I feel that it is going to be a serious problem if they are unable to take advantage of the special upgrading works. It will be a pity that we have a very good objective, but this objective remains on paper and may not be achieved. That is my basic concern.”
“Sir, in what way does the LTA monitor the carriage of these passengers? What has been done? Because I see that many of them are packed and some of them appear to be over-packed from time to time.”
“Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for Manpower what constructive steps are being taken by his Ministry to attract more women into the workforce.”
“Can I ask the DPM whether the economy is really robust because, from the ground, quite a lot of the other sectors are not performing that well. Is the 9% growth which was registered as robust as it seems to be? Secondly, I want to ask the DPM whether he foresees all these concerted price increases will drive up consumer prices and affect the ordinary wage earners. BG Lee Hsien Loong: The first question is whether the 9% is real. Well, it is there, unless you doubt the number. Does that mean every company is doing well? Not necessarily. I know that some of the small retailers in the constituencies are not feeling as much of the lift as they might if the economy was just generally expanding. But overall, from the macro point of view, it is quite a widely based expansion, because it is in manufacturing, services, trade, banking and finance. The only sector which is not growing is construction. But that is because we have an overhang, a downturn, and that will take some time to turn around. But overall, it is fairly broad based. His second question is whether we think these price increases will drive up the cost of living. I have given him MTI's estimate which is, despite the cost increases, overall, we think the CPI will go up by 1% to 2% this year. And I think that is acceptable. I do not see a sudden spiral-up in price levels unless we have some significant difficulties, say, with energy prices. Then of course it cannot be helped. And electricity prices are linked to energy prices. If oil prices go up, somebody has to bear it and Singapore Power cannot absorb it indefinitely. So eventually, electricity prices have to go up. What to do - we have no gas or oil gushing out from the ground. WOMEN IN WORKFORCE 2.”
“Or the MP. And, finally, they have to answer or be charged. Because he says, "Look, he gave advice."”
“Sir, I just want to follow up again because I have quite a lot of elderly residents who do rent out one room of their flats from time to time. As I have said, many of them are not that literate. I would like to ask whether we could make it easier for them if we have a one-stop centre where they can ask their neighbourhood leaders or Residents' Committee leaders to go and help them to verify. An hon. Member: Ask the MP?”
“Sir, the explanation by the Minister seems more cumbersome, in the sense that landlords have got to do several checks. What I would like to tell him is that there are cases which are genuine. These people, to an extent, carried out these checks. Having done this, there is the question of getting some verification. If they cannot get that verification because of the problems of getting access to the Ministry, we are, in fact, punishing some of these people unnecessarily. Could we not give the court the discretion of imposing either a heavy fine or jail? Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I have already said that there will be no such discretion for imposing a fine, because we need a mandatory jail sentence. And even with the mandatory jail sentence since 1984, we have not solved the problem. So let us not try to find another way to give them a fine. Dr Vasoo says that the procedure is cumbersome. The Minister for Manpower explained earlier, and I also reiterate here, that it is quite simple to go to SIR. Go to Lavender MRT station, get out there, go to SIR and get a print-out from them. That is his check with SIR about that person whom he is wanting to rent his properties to. But he must also check his passport and work pass to make sure that it is the same person. He cannot shift the responsibility to anybody.”
“Is the Minister aware that to just get through to the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Manpower is a tremendous effort? I have tried sometimes but I had great difficulty in getting through. How about those who are less educated who cannot get through? And if they get through, how are they going to verify? Who is going to substantiate that they have in fact checked?”
“I would like to ask the Minister a few questions. First, I would like to say that I have no sympathy for people who exploit illegal immigrants by harbouring them, particularly employers. But there is a group of people who need an income and I am concerned about a large number of older residents. The Housing and Development Board permits the rental of one room or two rooms by these residents and many of them are less educated. And going to the Ministry of Manpower or Ministry of Home Affairs is a cumbersome process. Many of them might find it difficult to get access. I think it is a serious problem and we need to address that. Could we work out a system for people to easily verify the bona fide of those they are renting out to? The other concern that I have, and the Minister might care to address, is that we are criminalising a group of people who are, in a way, just renting out their house and who may be unwitting at some point because of these cumbersome problems of trying to verify the bona fide of these people they are renting out to. And to send them to imprisonment is, in fact, a very heavy penalty. I was thinking whether there could be an option of either a heavy fine or imprisonment, if it is proved that they are really harbouring them, and also whether the Court could be given the discretion to establish this. Thirdly, for elderly residents who are really ignorant, could the CDC office or the Housing and Development Board levy an administrative charge on these people who need to rent out, particularly older residents, and provide the service to establish the verification of the tenants' background? The respective Departments can deal with the Ministry of Home Affairs or the Ministry of Manpower to establish the background of these people they are renting out to.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the DPM whether in future there will be arbitrary increases of such charges. Is MAS able to intervene in such decisions of banks that are going to make charges in future? Second, I understand that there is speculation at the ground level that the $2 charge that will be imposed by DBS is to help DBS recoup its losses in Thailand - the Thai Danu Bank. I think this speculation is quite rampant. Is the imposition of this charge to help DBS? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no idea whether banks will make arbitrary future increases. Bank charges are not subject to the Price Control Act. MAS does not regulate bank charges. We do not regulate interest rates, unlike some other jurisdictions. If any bank acts arbitrarily and just raises its fees and offends all its customers, the customers will just march to some other place. That is the way the system works. In fact, I would encourage the customers to march to some other place, but that is for the market to decide. On Thai Danu Bank, I am confused because I have been asked whether DBS is making too much money and, on the other hand, I am being asked whether this is happening because DBS is losing money. The answer to both questions is that they are wrong.”
“He asked what about the self-employed and can the Government top up. The answer is that the Government has been topping up. In fact, we have just paid $250 this year into everybody's accounts. This is not the first time. So even the self-employed should have a little bit of money in their CPF.”
“Right at the beginning, the Government has served notice and DBS has also explained that some adjustments will be necessary and this is one of the adjustment which is necessary. $2 is not welcome, but I have said, it is not huge and most people will find it affordable. Secondly, are we opening a new pandora's box? The answer is no, we are not. We are opening another window to liberalise rules which have become really too constrictive over time. When there were no instruments, when the population was illiterate, when the financial industry was not well developed, it made sense for us to say you keep your money in the CPF and we lock it up. Now that the population is educated, now that they have more savings, now that there are many alternative avenues of investing your money, because the financial industry has grown, and Singaporeans want to see their money grow properly because they regularly say, "Why such low CPF returns?", I think it is right for us, progressively, to liberalise and allow people to take their money out, not to spend, but to invest for purposes of retirement, either in a fixed deposit or into a retirement account or some other form of investments appropriate to their financial needs. It is how people look after their retirement needs in many countries in the world, whether it is Britain, whether it is America particularly. Even Hong Kong is now setting up what is called a Mandatory Provident Fund, a compulsory contribution but with the private sector, not managed by the government. So I think allowing banks and financial institutions to manage more of the CPF money of Singaporeans is the right direction to go in a very fundamental sort of way. Dr Vasoo's third question is answered by his fourth question.”
“Sir, I think the small account holders are in fact upset with DBS' decision on the $2 charge simply because they have no option as they will continue to be charged because it is for Giro payments. In the light that DBS is carrying a large proportion of POSBank account holders, is it not the moral obligation and corporate responsibility of DBS to ensure that it minimises as much disruption as possible for a large proportion of these small time account holders? I know that the suggestion by DPM is that CPF could be used to offset part of this cost but we are opening up a new pandora's box in the sense that CPF savings are for retirement and would it stop there because we are transferring money to fixed deposit savings accounts? The third question I would like to raise is that there are those who are self-employed who do not have any CPF savings and they are also low income earners. How are their problems going to be solved? Fourthly, are there any long-term solutions, other than this CPF fixed deposit arrangement that is being made? Since the Government has been making CPF top-ups from time to time, can every Singaporean be given this top-up as a base so that they would have an account available and all these transactions could be managed? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, first of all, whether DBS has a moral obligation to look after these people, the answer is that DBS is looking after these people, not just because of moral obligation but because they want to make sure that their customers are reasonably looked after. As I have explained, 19 months have passed since DBS merged with POSBank and adjustments have been made in many other areas, and now this area has to be changed. There is never a good time. Whenever you do it, there is always a step to be taken.”
“Sir, thank you very much for allowing me to end the debate. Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his reply and for providing us the future direction of his Ministry. However, I would like to urge the Minister to persuade his Cabinet colleagues to review family policies, because many of these family policies are at the moment segmented. There are too many captains playing in the family field, each playing their own game, to some extent. But I think there is a need to have a recess, so that we can get them to come together to review family policies and to come up with a more comprehensive plan to help families to be stronger. I think the Minister would have to persuade them and maybe they need a directive from the Prime Minister to really look at it. I am very serious because family policies need to be strengthened. Various players are playing, like the Ministry of Manpower, Ministry of Education and Ministry of Health. A lot of the Ministries are involved. We need to look at family policies very critically, and I would suggest that there is a need for us to revisit these areas in order that we can find fresh strategies to deal with the problem. We are a compassionate GPC, because we have to spare time for GPC education. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.”
“These are issues which are very complex and therefore if you want the voluntary sector to be more involved, I would urge the Ministry to re-look at the funding formula which will provide a new headstart for the organisations to be involved in promoting more self-help in the community.”
“Sir, thank you for allowing me to make some points relating to MCD. Each year, I have urged the Minister to try and see what he can do more for the voluntary welfare organisations and I would like to remind him this year again that the subventions provided to voluntary welfare organisations are not as attractive as it should be. I know his hands are tied but I will try and help him to urge the Ministry of Finance. I am sure that Members here will join me to urge the Ministry of Finance to find ways to allocate more funds to the people sector. As I have said earlier, this is very important because the people sector too requires more support in order to build a healthier community. This year, I see that $42.8 million has been allocated as subvention grant to the voluntary welfare organisations. This is, to my mind, indeed too small. I feel that a bit more could be given so that the voluntary sector will be more viable and will be able to take on additional responsibilities. This is one of the missions of MCD and the Government to encourage more helping hands. In order for them to participate in more self-help programmes, it is essentially necessary to find ways to increase the subventions to voluntary welfare organisations. I feel that the dollar-to-dollar contribution which is being given at the moment to programmes could be reviewed. I suggest that a 60:40 formula be considered so that the burden of fund-raising by the voluntary welfare organisations could be reduced. The volunteers could therefore be able to look at how they could extend their programmes and find new strategies to address the challenges which many Members have brought up relating to families, population decline, young persons, family conflicts and other related problems.”