Seah Kian Peng
Singapore
“I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Just a few supplementary questions. Given the decline in volume and given that I can understand SingPost having their challenges, how does the Ministry ensure that there is no degradation of services that are provided by SingPost?”
“Yet, violence, domination, pain, harm and abuse also occur within the walls of a family. We need to be vigilant and sensitive in our approach. Hard rules and automatic application of these rules are a poor response to the challenges that we face today.”
“Both parents and schools have a role to play in shaping our children in the way they should go and I agree with Mr Don Wee that it is important for families to have open conversations about these matters.”
“Just a quick supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. First, I must say I am surprised but happy that the number of cases has gone down. Having said that, we need to also pay attention to the number of unreported cases. Personally, I am sure we have heard from many residents who come to us for these cases.”
“Second, we propose to put in place new processes to prevent the misuse of the MPA by parents who have abandoned, abused or neglected their children and did not fulfil their parental duties. In so doing, we also protect and spare their children from unnecessary distress.”
“The way we feed ourselves will not be the same. The way we live and the way we work will also be different – telemedicine, work from home, online learning and the need for insurance. But there are other things which will remain the same – resilience, unity, and a single-minded commitment to our joint future.”
The complete record
Every one of 752 lines we hold for Seah Kian Peng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 16.
“But this must be where we start, so that at the end, we are sure that we have good reasons, one way or the other, for the path we have chosen to take. We may decide to adopt a more isolationist policy, we may decide to let fewer people into our shores, but let us be sure that we are doing that because there are good reasons, not because we are caving in to populist pressures. Sir, I support the Budget. 2.59 pm”
“Over the years, the Government has tightened rules so that the gap between citizens and non-citizens have widened – from medical benefits to Housing Board flat upgrading, where non-citizens pay the full rate. I fully support these measures. However, for some people, all this is cancelled out by National Service (NS). This is a sore and critical milestone for many. Such cases are unavoidable – just as there are some Singaporeans who go out of their way to "escape" NS. But we will catch them. NS is a subject which for many years has been considered a sacred cow, and to suggest anything to dilute it is considered unpatriotic. At the same time, the Government has also recognised that there is some cost to a male Singaporean in doing NS, hence the move to shorten its duration – which is good. At the same time, I wonder if new male citizens should also be called out for some reservist duties? Maybe a short 30-day induction BMT type training in the SAF would suffice. We teach them to use rifles, fire weapons, basic physical fitness, or we put them into Civil Defence training where they could learn some rescue techniques. Civil Defence too is part of total defence and provides a vital part of Singapore’s interior strength. Sir, this is a cool-headed look at a difficult issue of inviting strangers to our shores, and hoping they will become members of our team. I argue that we ought to adopt a rational and pragmatic approach towards the problem of declining domestic birth rates and the need for policies to make up for the shortfall. I know, of course, that rational arguments sometimes fail, especially in the realm of politically sticky policies.”
“It is up to us to make sure that these new members work with the old team and feel a part of us. Sir, I argue that more needs to be done to integrate new migrants – in fact first we need to make sure that they are called new Singaporeans rather than new migrants. They are not even new migrants – they are an old hand at migrating, but they want a new life. They want to settle down here and want to make Singapore their new home. Sir, to do something meaningful, we need to see what these new Singaporeans need. I believe we have not done any large scale survey, we do not know what their problems are, so what we ought to do is first – find out what new Singaporeans need, and then target funding at helping them meet these needs. If it is language skills, then we should subsidise language classes. If it is educational information or integration at schools, then we ought to target that. So we ought to spend more, we certainly ought to spend more wisely. Now as to how much, we have around 20,000 people become new citizens each year. If a new Singapore baby is born, we reward the parents with some form of baby bonus, the lowest of which I think is $9,000 in a co-payment method. Do your Mathematics and, roughly, you see that at $10 million for 20,000 new Singaporeans – these are adult and contributing members of society – we spend $500. Of course, the two groups are not perfectly comparable but we might want to bring the $500 closer to $1,000. Sir, I have made the argument for national integration with new Singaporeans on the basis that they are members of the same team. What about those who are not on the team?”
“The number of foreigners in Singapore has increased to more than 100,000 a year in recent years. And out of the approximately five million living here, more than a third – or 1.8 million – are non-citizens, with about half a million permanent residents. With such a large and fast inflow, it is no wonder that there is some political backlash. I have heard many stories from my residents and of course read many online postings about resentful Singaporeans. In this case, I would argue that these can be addressed not by reducing the number of immigrants overall, but by managing the pace at which they arrive. One of the Government’s responses has been to suggest a curbing of foreign workers and raising Singaporeans’ productivity. Now, the latter is good itself, whether or not we lower the flow of immigrants. But there is something that having fewer foreigners will give us greater motivation to improve. But even as we push towards higher productivity, we need to be mindful of possible dislocations of certain industries and companies, especially SMEs, as this might lead to unintended restructuring of workforce and result in some Singaporeans losing their jobs. As a labour MP, I am sure some Singapore workers may not be able to keep pace with the changes – so we need to watch for such danger signs and help these workers along. Sir, the Government has set aside a $10 million budget for national integration. Online and in the coffee shops, it has created some negative talk about use of public monies for foreigners. I will go against this flow and argue that rather than less, actually more needs to be spent to help new immigrants to integrate with us. When we acquire new citizens, we have new members on our team.”
“It has been said many times that Singapore needs immigrants because they do the jobs that we cannot or will not do. Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong has said that our economic growth rate would be one or two percentage points lower without foreigners. But this is rather big picture. So, I would like to ask whetherthe Finance Minister can quantify such gains and mark them down, for example, for every migrant worker, our GDP is boosted by $X. I believe this will go a long way towards diluting some of the resentment that Singaporeans have towards foreign workers, a subject which I shall touch on later. Sir, I have spoken on the undeniable economic benefits to Singapore from the inflow of immigrants. On the other hand, immigration is a hot political potato – from citizens and voters' viewpoint, they want fewer migrants. The UN report concedes that there are worries – it says that while it is widely believed that these migrants fill vacant jobs, they also displace local workers and reduce wages. There is also a worry of crime, a higher burden on social infrastructure and, of course, the lack of social cohesion. However, the report said: "The body of evidence suggests that these effects are generally small and may, in some contexts, be entirely absent." They have found that once established, migrants are often more likely than locals to join unions or religious and other groups. Sir, I do not know if these generalisations apply to Singapore. But I think the first step would be to commission a study to estimate exactly how much of this is true in Singapore. I think that sometimes, the perception of the cost of social cohesion is a result not just of the volume of immigrants but the pace at which they are allowed in.”
“And over the last 50 years, despite increased globalisation, cheaper communications and transport, the pull of an ageing population in developed countries coupled with the push of a young one in developing countries, has meant that the share of international migrants in the world population has remained at about 3%. Why? Because governments have erected barriers. And in the past 100 years, the number of nation states has increased four times to 200. Policies for immigration have become stricter. People with low skills have very little chance of being allowed into rich countries. The gains to the migrants and their relatives in their home country are unsurprisingly and largely positive – higher incomes and consumption, better education, improve health and social circumstances. This part does not concern me – it is almost self evidently true. And moreover, I am speaking from the point of view of Singapore as a recipient of these immigrants and the impact they have on our tiny island. Today, I want to make a plea for us to look at the rational arguments behind immigration, taking into account the measures that we need to realise those benefits which accrue generally to this phenomenon while ameliorating the costs. There is one aspect of the report which I found quite persuasive. It states that migrants boost economic output, at little or no cost to locals. At the same time, there are also more intangible positive effects – for example, maids in Singapore have allowed Singaporean mothers to go out and work. At the same time, it is empirically true that as migrants acquire the language and skills to earn more, they will integrate quite naturally. So, what is the gain to Singapore from immigrants?”
“Otherwise there may be a tendency that the task will fall on HR managers to implement them, as CEOs focus on immediate bottomline considerations. This is a natural and certainly instinctive division of labour but one that would harm our cause. So, to the bosses out there, I urge you to align your own KPIs please – likewise, the public sector should also take the lead and align the performance bonuses of senior civil servants of the various Ministries and Statutory Boards to productivity indicators. Sir, I am particularly happy with the changes in property tax structure to a progressive one. Likewise, changes to the Workfare Income Supplement and the Workfare Training Scheme which will benefit the masses and reduce social inequality, which I will say more during my cut on MCYS. For now, I would like to speak about a United Nations report on human development which argues that there are vital gains to be made by allowing for greater mobility of labour. In 2009, it made the case that governments "should reduce restrictions on movements within and across their borders, so as to expand human choices and freedoms". The report speaks of less developed countries and note that for "many people in developing countries, moving away from their home town or village can be the best – sometimes the only – option open to improve their life chances". More importantly, the report said, "being able to decide where to live is a key element of human freedom". I agree that people ought to have the freedom to move, but what about my existing stake in a particular spot? Not surprisingly, the world over, barriers have been raised in a bid to regulate the movement of people.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Finance Minister has unveiled an uplifting Budget, achieving a good balance in addressing concerns of businesses and people. Notwithstanding the impending higher foreign worker levies, a number of business associates of mine tell me they are pleased with the Government taking the lead and calling on all to innovate, and transform and up their productivity. It has made their job "easier" in that this subject can now be raised; something which most employers find it hard to tee up for serious discussion and where understanding on the imperatives of this is usually not high. Now, all are on the same page and chances for success are higher. But in the same breath, the same business associates would also tell me that they would like to have more details on how their companies and staff can apply and tap on the $1.1 billion funds committed by Government each year for the next five years – these are practical questions which I hope the Minister will address expeditiously. This Budget thus presents us a chance to really transform ourselves – to a quality workforce with a quality lifestyle set amidst a quality infrastructure and an efficient government. This push towards a quality and inclusive growth is achieved on the back of investing and strengthening the capabilities of our people and companies through innovation and productivity breakthroughs. These are bold targets and represent a strong vision. Sir, a point to add here about the raising of productivity – if we want a higher productivity culture and measures to succeed, I think we need this to be aligned to a CEO's key performance indicators (KPIs), perhaps their performance bonus should be tied to productivity indicators.”
“I thank the Minister for the clarifications. Just some follow-up questions. Sometimes when we look at numbers, 3% looks like a small figure, but if you are part of the 3% who cannot find a place in the hospital, it is a different problem. I would like to use the words which Minister Lim Swee Say likes to quote – if I am out of job, even if unemployment is 1.3%, it is 100% unemployment for the people affected. I think for that 3%, we need to look at it carefully. The second point is about allowing Medisave to be used for treatment in hospitals outside of Singapore. Although that provides a choice, but we need to be assured that the quality aspects are not compromised. I would like the Minister to address how that particular aspect is taken care of.”
“Just some clarifications and supplementary questions for the Minister. He mentioned that restructured hospitals do not take part in any overseas marketing. A friend of mine sent me a photograph of a billboard in a Russian city about coming to Singapore by a restructured hospital. I can send the Minister the picture which I must assume that is done by Singapore Tourism Board, if what Minister is saying is correct. Nonetheless, I have these two supplementary questions. I wonder whether the retention of good doctors forms part of the reason for getting in these foreign private patients. I understand that possibly the doctors may be paid more when they treat such patients. And if so, how does these incentives scheme affects their motivation to treat local patients? Second supplementary question is that there was recently a relaxation of Medisave to be allowed for in-patient use and treatment at overseas hospitals. I wonder whether is this a symptom or consequence of our resources being used to treat foreign patients at the expense of local patients. So I would like the Minister to comment on this.”
“This can be deployed immediately to affected victims as a form of monitoring. It is money well spent and should be made standard items in all NPCs. Secondly, introduce incentive schemes for information relating to such activities and syndicates. It could be a one-off period as part of a clean-up exercise. Third, publish the photos of known loansharks and their syndicates – and this can be displayed on all notice boards of all Residents Committees and HDB blocks. If the Senior Minister of State needs a pilot run to test the effectiveness, I volunteer my ward at Braddell Heights to try it. Mdm Deputy Speaker, it needs a community effect to reduce loansharking. We need to recognise that there is a demand for credit from people who do not have good credit risks profiles; we need to match this demand to an honourable supply. I believe the new law is going towards that step. I ask to do it more and I would like to ask the Minister to consider the suggestions I have made. With that, I support the Bill. 5.51 pm”
“Members need to know that they can get help from their own co-ops and even if they are working in the same organisation, it is common for them to be spread over different locations; and (b) allow for greater flexibility in membership criteria so that they can reach out to more people in the community. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I recognise these proposals do not come under MHA's purview but I hope this can be taken up by the relevant Ministries, via the Whole of Government approach. The proposed legislative changes are of no use, I emphasise again – no use if we do not provide alternative options for traditional clients of loansharks to turn to and credit co-ops have a useful role in this regard. We are not encouraging such behaviour as irresponsible spending, but really, if you need to dig yourself out of a hole, I think it is to use a more friendly hand than a grasping one. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I do support the need to punish illegal moneylenders severely. Despite what I have said about the advantages of the free market, I recognise its limits. The difference between loansharking and licensed moneylending lies in the licence. And the licence pledges a person to a certain set of rules, and part of which includes the proper behaviour of collection. Many of us have seen many residents affected and traumatised by the collection tactics of debt collectors. I have my fair share of such residents who have been affected by these incidents. Their lives have been turned upside down. So I have no sympathy for such perpetrators and support the move for stiffer penalties. I want to propose some practical suggestions on the ground for the Minister to consider. First, on the policing front, can we equip all NPCs (Neighbourhood Police Centres) with adequate CCTVs.”
“For example, credit co-ops can serve the lower and lower middle income groups while the banks and finance companies can concentrate on the middle and the higher income earners. There may be some overlap but I think each will find its own space in time to come. In terms of marketing, co-ops will need to position themselves differently from moneylenders. And I believe they can do so – in the same way that many of the NTUC Social Enterprises, the various co-ops, they have differentiated themselves from commercial entities. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I stress the social mission because I do recognise that some families do need to have access to credit in times of crisis, and we need to look for solutions for such cases. So perhaps we need to make it easier, whether it is in terms of form filling, or whether it is in terms of greater expediency in processing of applications. We should certainly also encourage people to join thrift and loan societies, inculcate in them the concept of regular savings, in whatever small amounts they can afford. By being members, they will also have access to loans when they need one because they are members. I would like to ask if the Minister can liberalise the existing restrictions to allow credit co-operatives to: (a) advertise their services – the current guidelines do not quite permit them to advertise beyond the registered location. This, to me, does not seem to be very sensible because credit co-operatives cannot be location-based services.”
“Some Members are of the view that there is a need to even impose penalties and make borrowing from unlicensed moneylenders, the loansharks, illegal. I do not support such a view as this in itself is not a solution. So first, I support the loosening of controls on marketing as well as the charging of interest rates. The original Moneylenders Act (MLA) of 1959, was intended to protect borrowers from falling into the trap of moneylenders who impose high interest rates. But there is a sense that high rates are fair play. The new Moneylenders Bill will make it legal to charge interest above the current prescribed amounts of 18% for unsecured loans, and 12% for secured ones. I support this because it allows a better matching of risk and return. Whether or not this will assist in profiteering is something that we have to find out empirically, but given the current status of information flows and means of communication, I find it difficult to believe that profiteering can still take place. Mdm Deputy Speaker, this new law will give licensed moneylenders more flexibility to act and to increase the supply of money. At the same time, there is an affected area of law that may need to be changed in tandem with this. I speak of the credit co-operatives, a point on which Mr Sin Boon Ann has also elaborated. Whilst this does not come directly under the purview of the Ministry of Home Affairs, I would like the Minister to work with the appropriate Ministries to consider the promotion of credit cooperatives and some relaxation of rules that apply to them which may currently curtail their growth. Co-operatives play a crucial role in this because they have a social mission, something that allows them to take on greater risks for comparatively lesser returns.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, my points on this Bill are motivated by the simple idea that money should be put in the hands of people who have the best ideas for them. Laws regulating money, in so far as money is treated as capital and hence a factor of production, should be merely tools that facilitate the most efficient allocation of this capital. There is nothing wrong or bad about moneylending. In fact, I know of one very distinguished person who shared with me that his mother raised the family up by resorting to borrowing monies from loansharks. Fortunately, she was able to service the interest regularly and ultimately repay the loan amount in full. He confided in me that at that point in time, this was her and their family’s only option. Unfortunately, such stories are few and far between and most people who had to resort to loansharks never get to see the light of day. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I see the proposed amendments to the Moneylenders Bill as a re-balancing of the existing law, but I feel this balance can still be tilted towards the side of the lenders. Let me explain. As we legislate for new measures and tougher penalties against loansharks and their associates – a move which I fully support – we need to, at the same time, review and propose measures which ensure that those in need know where they can turn to in their time of need. This issue, like most of the social problems we face now, has multiple dimensions to it. Someone describe it to me, it is like squeezing a balloon. As we turn off the tap and put the screws on the loansharks, we have to ensure that the licensed moneylenders become a known source which those in need of funds can turn to and borrow from.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for the support. I share his views and considerations behind the current policy. But I would like the Ministries, both MCYS and MOM, to look into this further because I still want to question the basis of the policy. In my opinion, the common denominator is mothers rather than categories of mothers and that they all should be entitled to this benefit by the employers. I do not know how big is this group. But I am quite sure I have some residents who have come to me on this. I think for the three groups that are affected, it means and costs a lot to them. I also understand the considerations of employers, and we do not want to make things difficult for them, but at the same time, it is in the employers' interests also to take care of these three groups of expectant mothers. I hope the Minister could address that.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his answer. I have supplementary questions. I have no objection to an inclusive approach. I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary what is the basis for the differences in approach between PA, SSC and SNOC in classifying these associations. The second question relates to safety standards. I also understand that in the current case, the hearing is in progress. But I would like to suggest that, in the meantime, clearly for physical contact sports, since the safety standards are already there, I do not know whether PA should immediately consider adopting them. They could still refine them pending the outcome of the Committee of Inquiry.”
“Sir, I certainly agree that legislative measures should be used as a last resort. I think there should be equal emphasis on education, and this does not apply just to MCYS but certainly to the Ministry of Education. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry will consider an inspiring campaign, just as the Ministry had done in the last two to three years. There was one about family bonding – there was a "Red Shoes" campaign; and there was one about marriage – the "Funeral" campaign. I would like to ask whether the Ministry will consider one which talks about educating the young on filial piety. The numbers are certainly scary, and I think it is worth considering putting some resources into it and possibly reduce the pressures that we are all facing.”
“I just want to ask the Minister two supplementary questions. In the spirit of greater disclosure, I would assume that with Mr Goodyear's departure there would be some changes in the search criteria for the next CEO. I would like to suggest to make public, both from the Government's perspective and Temasek's perspective, these new search criteria or the prerequisites for the next CEO of Temasek. My second supplementary question relates to the Minister's comments that there is no timeline for this search. I would like to suggest that surely the search for a CEO is an important one. And timeline is necessary because targets drive action. So I would suggest that this be reviewed.”
“Sir, my second question is whether priority can be given to Singapore citizens.”
“Sir, two supplementary questions. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his answers. I am heartened by the high take-up rate. My first question is, of the 13,083 jobs that were offered, how many were taken up by Singaporeans and I presume the rest are PRs? And my second question is whether, this being the Singapore Public Service, consideration and priority can be given to Singaporean citizens for the remaining almost 5,000 jobs that we are continuing to fill? Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have the breakdown between Singapore citizens, PRs and non-Singapore citizens and PRs. But I would expect that the vast majority of the jobs would have gone to the citizens and, if not them, PRs. So I expect that will continue particularly in agencies like the Home Team and the Ministry of Defence which are very large employers.”
“I will move on to my third supplementary question. I believe the Minister would have read some of the comments made even in China. I read many of them which passed some comments about Singaporeans and Singapore in general, which I find quite damaging and disturbing. I would like the Minister's view on this.”
“I thank the Minister for his answers. I know that within the Ministry sports is identified as a good way of bonding communities together and I fully agree with that. But as we have seen, if not handled properly, it could have the opposite effect. Given that the MCYS does give the SSC and many national sports associations (NSAs) significant levels of funding, I would urge the Ministry or SSC to play a more active role in managing the affairs of some of these sports associations where it feels there is a need to. My second supplementary question concerns conflict-resolution. I recognise and know that disputes and conflicts will arise from time to time. I wonder whether SSC can play a more constructive role under such circumstances. They could come in to mediate if it is obvious that amongst the parties involved, they are unable to find a resolution. I cannot but wonder –”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for the answer. I would like to ask, after the first pay-out, whether the Ministry has found possible cases of companies hiring phantom workers.”
“Sir, I would just like to ask the Minister for a clarification. I wonder whether the Minister is able to provide comparative statistics in terms of the number of jobs created in these various clusters? The reason I am asking for this is because I have spoken about the need to push for inclusive growth, a point which I believe Prime Minister himself also mentioned in his speech. So notwithstanding the value-add that is created by some of these clusters, the point I want to make is: should the Government consider growing some of these clusters which inherently create more jobs, which in turn will benefit more Singaporeans? And, if so, can we put more resources and have a deliberate strategy towards growing these clusters?”
“I agree with the Education Minister that we should not push everything to the schools. Everything starts with values, whether it is about financial literary, whether it is about respect for elders, or even sexual identity. In conclusion, and returning to Daly’s arguments, I think we need to increase the “moral capital” of society by building shared norms and values about what constitutes behaviour that will make Singapore the best home for our families. I think that we need to change our mindsets that a return to robust economic growth is the solution to our problems. And as we pursue sustainable economic development, we must strive for inclusive growth. We need to also transform our thinking - recognise the physical limits of a tiny island, inculcate moral limits against over-consumption and together, work on making Singapore one of the most liveable cities in the world. Sir, I support the motion. 2.05 pm”
“The ways people act are ultimately governed by their system of beliefs. In the larger view of the way Singapore should progress, we need to change our beliefs that growth is a ceaseless striving. We need to feel proud of Singapore for what it is, and to take care of it, to protect it from over-exploitation, overcrowding and unsustainable growth. One initiative which I admire is the National Parks Board’s idea to get people to plant a tree. You pay $200 and you get to plant a tree in different parts of Singapore. Of course, the Board can plant trees itself, and the $200 does not defray much of the cost of caring for the tree for any length of time. But this public effort has the effect of allowing people to feel that they own a tree and are part of the movement. Here I again come to the idea of making Singapore one of the most liveable cities in the world, from both people perspective and business perspective. But to do this, we need not just a whole of Government approach, we need a whole of country approach. We need different perspectives - environment, people, Government and business. We are already top in infrastructure. I think we can now work more on the software. There are three ways which I think the people sector can work together with the Government to make Singapore an even more liveable city. (1) Let us keep Singapore safe and clean. These include community policing, to keep it crime free. Public health demands also mean that we should work together to keep public places free of rats and mosquitoes. (2) Let us be gracious. Clear our own trays. Give way, instead of speeding up when a car in front of us signals to filter in. Put our mobiles to silent mode without being reminded. Queue and be patient. (3) Educate our kids at home.”
““The growth economy fosters the erosion of the values upon which it depends, such as honesty, sobriety, trust, etc.” Sir, in Singapore, we rely on innovative policies to get out of some deep holes - for example, our ethnic quota policies in Housing Board estates give us a good multi-racial mix and help the different races to live together. Our Marina Barrage turns seawater into fresh water simply by using Nature’s water cycle. For many years, because we have overcome so many problems through new ideas and new technologies, the power of science-based technology may lead us to think that we can overcome all biophysical limits. I have said above that this is not possible. But, here, I think our moral value should also tell us that this is not desirable. Daly argues that that the forces of economic growth are “simultaneously eroding the moral foundations of the very social order which gives purpose and direction to that growth”. He says that “the glorification of self-interest and the pursuit of 'infinite wants' lead to a weakening of moral distinction between luxury and necessity. Moral limits constraining demand for junk are inconvenient in a growth economy, because growth increases when junk sells.” Sir, we need to change our mindset to reflect the reality that more is not only not physically possible, but not necessarily better as well. I know that many young parents nowadays have given up the cheap plastic toys, which can fill shelves in their homes, and prepared to settle for two or three good, well-made ones. I know of even more people who have chosen to give up a frenzied existence, and opted to downshift so that they can do voluntary work or spend time to take care of their aging parents.”
“I have spoken on these in the recent Budget debate, so I shall not repeat them here. But I want to suggest a rethink on three fronts: (1) Let us aim for modest, sustainable economic growth. (2) Let us aim for growth which is inclusive. By "inclusive growth", I mean we need to promote sectors and industries which inherently employ more locals, more Singaporeans. It must necessarily mean we need to invest in and devote more attention and resources to these sectors. (3) Let us be less materialistic. Let us return to basics - building stronger and resilient families becomes even more important as stress lines will continue to be tested in these trying times. Let us spend our money on helping those who do not have, rather than giving those who have even more. Yes, we do have many safety nets and the many-helping hands approach is a good one. Still, my own view is that it is better to err on the conservative side and even good to have some overlap between the various safety nets and schemes so that no one will fall through any gaps which may be there. Sir, an economist called Herman Daly writes about the depletion of “moral capital” of the modern economy. The term “moral capital” is defined using Adam Smith’s “Theory of Moral Sentiments”, and it says that men could be trusted not to harm the community even while pursuing their self-interest. And this is because aside from the invisible hand of the market, there are also “built-in restraints” on behaviour. These include morals, religion, custom and education. Daly argues that this “moral capital” has been eroded by the forces propelling economic growth.”
“But, fundamentally, have we made the necessary change in recognising the physical limits of our growth? Should we talk instead of economic development rather than growth? That is to say, has the time come for us to acknowledge that we can no longer grow physically forever, and that there is a physical limit to the number of people we can accommodate on our tiny island? This recognition does not prevent us from making economic progress. We can strive for a higher value economy, and better life, not necessarily with more things, but with better things. More fundamentally, we may have fewer material things, but a more satisfying life nonetheless. So, my message is that we need to achieve economic development with environmental protection. This is key towards our goal of being the best home for our people. As an island, we are more vulnerable to the effects of global warming and rising sea levels. Our growth thus needs to be balanced with development on a sustainable basis. As we come out of this crisis which we surely will, the process going forward is important and we must recognise the above implications - a strong rebound and a return to robust growth may not be desirable as it is unlikely to be sustainable. In concrete terms, and for a real goal to aim for, I want to suggest that the Government aim to make Singapore one of the top 10 most liveable cities in the world by 2015. Why 2015? Well, that is the year that Singapore will turn 50 years, and is a good sign of a maturing nation. It must necessarily mean a whole of Government approach to realise this - a collective will and effort to recognise what our limits are, and to treat these with respect. I have examined the criteria for the liveable cities ranking quite closely.”
“Can the Government give us an assurance of the stable state population that Singapore is looking at? Is it 6 million or will it keep changing? Sir, I understand the argument for vibrancy - that we need to grow to keep ourselves on the forefront of prosperity, that we cannot lose out. But this argument falls down quite quickly when we realise that growth has a physical limit, one which I believe we are hitting quite soon. This, of course, is not a merely Singapore phenomenon. It is a global crisis, one which has gone unnoticed because we are all too busy fixing the financial crisis to notice that there is a deeper and bigger one, which cannot be solved by issuing more paper money or borrowing from another country. Sir, in the early 1900s, economic models of growth told us that the environment constitutes an important component of the production process. But somewhere along the last 100 years, we have lost the concept of environmental capital and we are left with the cost of using labour and manufactured capital in our economic analyses. This is not surprising because there is little direct impact, and no motivation to cost in environment. Producers continue to want to get the biggest bang for their buck for each unit of factor of production. The environment - unlike banks and workers - cannot make demands on firms, and this is the classic problem of public goods. Sir, we are observing today the price of our neglect. All over the world, we are seeing the destruction of clean air, the vast oceans, and the harm to animal life. In Singapore, we congratulate ourselves for being “greener” than we had been in the past, we are delighted that our rivers are clean, and we want to be a water hub, an energy hub, and a research hub for a better environment.”
“Sir, I thank the President for his Address which was wise, as well as illuminating. He makes two points which are especially telling in these tumultuous times. First, he speaks about the need for new solutions, new mindsets for a new world. He reminds us of the need to be creative and for Singapore to be innovative. The second is about growing the economic pie. We remain committed to the ideal of the “good life” as one comprising a strong economy and a stable country. Mr Speaker, Sir, we might have heard these points before but, today, I would like to take these points and give them a new interpretation. Today, we talk of “green shoots”. Among economists and policy-makers alike, there is renewed optimism and an embrace of a consumer-led recovery, as seen by the support given to the “stimulus” packages by governments. We are all keen to “get back” to the way that things were - we are eager to get out of the recession, to spend as we did before and to see our economies all grow. But, Sir, there are two questions - first, is this realistic? Second, is this desirable? Will this make Singapore a good place to live and bring up our children? First, is it possible for the economy to keep growing? Even one grain of rice cannot be multiplied from one end of the chessboard to the other, if we speak of exponential growth. Yet, with compound interest and continuous economic growth, this is precisely what we are talking of. Sir, we should consider, what are the physical limits of growth for Singapore? When will we have run up against these limits? I know I am not alone in noticing that Singapore is becoming quite crowded. Is there enough land to go around?”
“Sorry, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary did not answer my question (b).”
“Sir, I believe the Senior Parliamentary Secretary did not answer my last question in my original oral question. In addition to that particular query, given that they have been under-utilised for several years and if SSC has no better plans, I would suggest that they be returned to SLA for better utilisation.”
“I thank the Minister for the answer. Could the Minister just update us in the case of the Sports Hub, what is the current status with respect to its opening?”
“Sir, just one other supplementary question. I agree that indeed this package is meant to help the businesses. Does the Ministry contemplate that there could be a situation where every loan – good or bad loan – is transferred from the financial institution's existing portfolio into this scheme? And if it does, are we allowing this to happen?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for the answer. Is he able to give me specific numbers for the questions that I have tabled? Also, would the Ministry be concerned if many banks are indeed asking their clients to switch over from their existing loans to this new package, what it means to the businesses and whether the Ministry itself is taking a proactive approach in understanding the extent of the situation?”
“Sir, I will argue that this personal choice allows us to increase the total sum of happiness at no extra costs. There seems no reason why we should not do it. The only reason I can think of not doing it is purely on administrative grounds. But surely this is not a good enough reason. If we believe this is a right policy, I am sure we can find a way out. This change in policy will help us to take a step forward in building stronger resilient families. It may even provide a fillip to our population woes. At a time of uncertainty and social pressure, family needs more mothers and fathers even more. Encouraging fathers to take on caring roles and joint responsibilities with their wives towards their newborns is vital, if we are serious about enabling both parents to realise their full potential at home and at work. So, Sir, I hope the Ministry can put this as a high priority item on their To-Do list.”
“Sir, thank you for the honour of filing the last cut for this year's COS debate. I would like to use this time to pursue an old hobby horse. But first, let me declare my interest as a board member of Centre for Fathering. Last August, the Government has said that there was no need to introduce Paternity Leave as working fathers will benefit from two leave entitlements from the enhanced Marriage and Parenthood Package. That is six days of paid childcare leave plus six days of unpaid infant care leave per parent per year. In granting fathers this leave entitlement, which I support, the Government has signalled its recognition of the importance of working fathers' role in raising children. But I am not at all convinced that this is enough for someone who views parenting as a shared responsibility – a role that has been consistently advanced by our various Ministers. But, to me, it remains more words than action. I am sure all of us have received much feedback from friends and relatives, instances where many working fathers have to take extra days of leave just to handle the entire birth process – from running errands to and from hospital, assisting their wives to settle in with the newborn. A bonus if the wife gives birth on a Saturday because it saves two working days. Not so good if your newborn suffers from jaundice – another day required to make a trip to hospital to fetch the baby after recovery. Hence, rather than imposing a strict four months' maternity leave to mothers and giving fathers just three days, I ask the Government to grant some flexibility to each set of parents to apportion their leave at their discretion. Such a proposal gives more power to the couple to decide for themselves.”
“I thank the Minister for his clarification. The key point I want to make is that when we talk about sustainability, it must be sustainable. The fact remains that the car growth of 1.5% is exceeding the road growth of 0.5%. There is going to be a mis-match for this year, next year and the year after. So, we are just adding more cars to the roads and this will certainly mean a lot more inconvenience for all existing motorists.”
“Sir, I refer to the Minister's response to my suggestion to review the car growth policy and specifically my suggestion to reduce it from the current 1.5% to 1%. Amongst other reasons, he stated we need to give the public sufficient time to adjust to this new policy. To that, I would say I think that existing motorists and aspiring motorists have already spoken in terms of bidding for COEs. So I want to clarify what the Minister means by "sufficient time to adjust to this new policy". Secondly, I think he also said that it is already halved from 3% to 1.5%. I think the question to ask is really, is 1.5% too much in this current climate. 1.5% to review it after three years is adding 36,000 cars on the road. My suggestion of putting it to 1%, if it's done now, over three years would mean 12,000 fewer cars in these three years. So I do think that circumstances have changed and I would like to ask the Minister to give this some consideration.”
“Not in this current gloom where the game has changed. No one can portend when the crisis will end, and a majority of us have started to shift to survivor mode. So, I would like to ask the Minister to reconsider the planning parameters of vehicle growth rate versus growth in population policy in the next two years. This should be reviewed sooner, in fact now. If the economic situation improves, the Ministry can always reinstitute the 1.5% growth rate. Finally, I would also like to ask the Minister for an update on the Land Transport Masterplan that was launched at the start of last year. Specifically, are the planning parameters used in the formulation of the Land Transport Masterplan valid in the light of the current economic climate? If there is a need to, I hope the Minister will also refine the Land Transport Masterplan accordingly. Progress on the Quality of Public Transport”
“Sir, I take heart in the Minister’s response to my query last March that they will wait three years to review if there is a need for a further reduction to the vehicle growth rate, which currently stands at 1.5% per annum. He also said that this percentage is not intended to be a long-term fixture. That conversation, however, had taken place before the global financial meltdown. Today, even the brightest brains in business and Government who gathered at the recently-concluded World Economic Forum are unable to fathom how deep their economies have tanked – the severity and depth of this crisis is still unknown and no one could propose nor suggest a solution to get us all out of this rut. With progressively weakening economic conditions (as evidenced by falling COE prices for sometime now), the picture being painted now is rather different now from what it was a year ago. Individuals and businesses are looking for ways to reduce costs of living and costs of doing business – and transport cost is certainly one of them. If we now reduce vehicle growth rate from the current 1.5% to, say, 1% per year, it is logical to conclude that fewer cars on the road should lead to less congestion and smoother traffic flows. ERP charges, which is a function of the traffic density and flows on the roads, should accordingly remain static. In fact, logically, ERP charges may even come down. This will be welcome news to businesses and individuals alike. For businesses, this would lead to a lower cost of doing business and for individuals, a great relief to lowering their cost of living. Is anything less than 1.5% too drastic? Is lack of demand for cars overwhelming? Are aspirations of first-time car owners curtailed? I do not think so.”
“Sir, I understand that some 6,000 families are eligible for the HOPE scheme in all. For one reason or another, over the past four years, more than 4,000 either do not know about the scheme or have not felt the need to sign up. If it is an information gap, four years seems a long time to not have filled it. So I am surmising that it is because these families can cope on their own; and, if so, perhaps it is time to offer HOPE to others, who may need it more. Sir, the resources have been set aside but the needs are just as great at the margins of the scheme for which these resources are meant. For those in need, it is a frustrating case of so near and yet so far. So Sir, I urge the Government to extend the HOPE scheme to divorced mothers with two or fewer children. Maintenance of Parents”
“Sir, I would like to speak on the HOPE scheme and to ask the Government to open this scheme to all families, not just those that we see as mainstream or normal. The HOPE scheme was launched in 2004, with various criteria including the age of the mother, number of children, household income, the father must be working, and so on. Sir, I understand the rational for this policy - it is to help families who are less well-off, and to give them incentives to keep their families small. But what about dysfunctional families, for example, divorced mothers with two or fewer children? Can they not be allowed to come under the HOPE scheme? I know that the Ministry has different policy objectives, some of which can be tackled by HOPE and others which require different routes. But I wonder, how many dysfunctional families as defined by MCYS are on their radar screen for HOPE? Solutions for this group are very tough. Even the definition of such groups is not easy. I know that it must require intensive case management and hand-holding for each of such families since circumstances are so varied and the needs so great. But it appears to me now that there is no better systematic, family-based option to helping these families than HOPE. We give them a home, and we give them a peace of mind about their children's education. These are the two main social issues that have already been tackled upfront already, and we can continue to work on the gaps as time goes on. Sir, there are now 1,600 families who have benefited from HOPE, getting $100,000 each from the Government, for their children's education, skills training, utilities and housing. Last year, families whose fathers are in prison were included in the HOPE scheme.”
“Can I ask if the Minister would consider the setting up of a National Family Resilience index? This index would take into account all the multi-layered meanings that we now employ unconsciously when we use the word. In Canada now, there is an International Resilience Project (IRP) funded by the government of Canada and coordinated through a university there. It aims to develop a more culturally-sensitive understanding of how youth around the world effectively cope with the adversities that they face.The word resilience has also been used in humanitarian terms. The UN has an analytical tool that measures how resilient a household is under severe stress. So the concepts and the tools for analysis already exist. Can we not use them to get a clearer idea of what we mean when we speak of resilient families? Can we not get a handle that allows us to have a coherent picture from the statistics on divorce rates, the difficulties faced by single parents, problems with delinquent children and the capacity of our families to tackle stress? I hope the Ministry can consider my points. Thank you! Reducing Divorce Rates”
“Yes, Sir, we all know how siblings and relatives chip in to help their family when some other siblings do not come forth. There are those who feel that the Government should do more, and there have been times when I count myself among this group. But overall and in the main, I feel that it is right to depend on the family – both as a matter of personal philosophy and of public policy. My suggestion is in two parts. First, do we have a national strategy to build resilient families? We already have many of the pieces in place, but is there a need to put them altogether differently, to target specifically at the goal of resilient families? How can we formulate a coherent and inter-related set of policies that will address this issue? Second, can we produce a benchmark for us to understand the impact of what the Government is doing to help families become more resilient? As a whole, for all the families in Singapore, how resilient are we? How well do we respond to stress? What kind of help do we need? Now, we tend to take divorce rates as some sort of resilience proxy – if divorce rates go up, we say that families are becoming weaker. But Sir, there is a sense in which families actually become more resilient after divorce – there is nothing to say that two blended families are less resilient than one family, with an unhappy set of parents. Sir, do not misunderstand me. I do think that rising divorce rates are a source of concern but I am just making a logical point here. We speak of resilience as if we all know what we mean, there is something to catch hold of. But there isn’t really. So, what do we mean by saying that we want to build “resilient families”?”
“Sir, I am heartened to hear from the Senior Minister of State about the high 95% annual customer satisfaction survey conducted for the civil service. I would like to refer to the annual Mercer's Quality of Living survey. Last year, we were ranked 32nd out of all cities in the world. This is an improvement. We were in 34th position in 2007. So I would like to ask that the Minister set a target and adopt a Whole-of-Government approach in getting Singapore to be in the top 20 list of this Quality of Living survey – the most "livable" city – and that, obviously, I hope for it to be done as soon as possible. On a lighter note, I am also very happy to hear from the Senior Minister of State that she has agreed to adopt my suggestion that, after this Budget debate, we can all go for "SPAR" (Singapore Public Sector Annual Report). I am not sure what the rest of Members are thinking of. [Laughter. ] I would like to ask when we can look forward to this inaugural Singapore Public Sector Annual Report.”
“To date, this has caused the closure of more than 50% (10 out of 20), of the workshops converting petrol and diesel vehicles into CNG vehicles, and a loss of approximately 100 skilled jobs. Sir, may I suggest, that if the main reason for promoting CNG vehicles is to protect the environment and our health, that the Minister consider: (i) extending the GVR from five to 10 years and to include these incentives to cover the conversion of petrol and diesel vehicles, bi-fuel vehicles and fleet owners of taxis, buses and trucks; (ii) to remove the tax levy on CNG up to 2015; and (iii) to provide special incentives for those who invest in more CNG stations, so as to encourage more of these stations to be built. If we want a cleaner environment, better health and a general industry that will provide skilled jobs for Singaporeans, I would like to encourage the Minister to continue supporting this great initiative and to see it through as I think it would be difficult to value the cost of a healthier environment and the global image that will bring us to a more sustainable Singapore.”
“CNG Green Vehicle Rebates Er Edwin Khew Teck Fook (Nominated Member): Sir, the Singapore Government introduced a special tax exemption for Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles in 2001 to promote the use of green vehicles in Singapore, to improve our air quality, particularly, to reduce particulate matter (PM) 2.5. PM2.5 is a fine pollutant (2.5 microns in size), that is linked to asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory problems, including premature death in people with heart or lung diseases. The average level of PM2.5 for Singapore was 19 μg/m3 in 2003, and 21 μg/m3 in 2005, exceeding the international accepted standard of 15 μg/m3 set by the USEPA (US Environmental Pollution Agency). There have been no public figures released for PM2.5 after 2005. I can only assume that this has been increasing, from the 2003 to 2005 trends. 50% of this invisible pollutant is contributed by diesel vehicles. Petrol driven vehicles also contribute to PM2.5, but at lower levels. However, CNG cars emit negligible amounts of particulate matter. Because of the high cost of petrol and diesel in 2008, the LTA registered 2,196 private CNG cars and 757 CNG taxis. Two stations were opened, more are scheduled for 2009. However, in the last three months of 2008, because of the negative press coverage putting doubts whether the Government will extend the special tax incentives, the sales and conversion of CNG vehicles dropped, as there was no clarity from the Government. Two other factors accelerated the process: (i) not enough CNG stations; and (ii) the smaller disparity between cost of petrol and CNG, because of the weakening of the oil prices.”